I won't address every point in your post because I think we've already been over them in other posts. But I want to address this one:

You brought up your point that society might be the cause of the harm in many cases. I certainly agree that society at least ADDS to the harm. It also may be the major cause of the harm in some cases. But why does that matter? I honestly don't see the relevance of where the harm comes from.

It matters, if for no other reason, because if society is the primary factor behind any harm that might be caused, then the outlawing of man/boy sexual relationships is a great injustice with no moral justification. If that is the case, then we should all support the repeal of legislation that is harming our children and destroying the lives of minor attracted adults.

If society is truly the source of the harm, then the ideal way to achieve what you claim to be your goal (protect children from harm), is to advocate for a change in social values. A change that begins with ourselves.


Ok, so I wrote the above before I finished reading the post. Seeing as I am personally mentioned in the post, I feel like I should go back and address everything again afterall. So, here I go:

I find it significant that the vast majority od those who don't think it's harmful in most cases are those who want it very badly....ie boylovers.

How do you know that to be true? Is it just a guess?

I recall when I first discovered I was a pedophile. I was about 12, and we had a set of the Encylopaedia Brittanica at home. I had a voracious appetite for knowledge and the internet was not widely available at the time, so that's obviously the first place I went.

For a long time I could recite word for word the entire encyclopedia entry related to child sexual abuse. I was not armed with the word "pedophile" yet, so it was one of the few shreds of information I had on what I was and I went back and read it over and over again.

I can no longer recall exactly the words in the encyclopedia. However, I clearly recall the encyclopedia explaining that children often view the sexual contact as playful or pleasurable and are only traumatized by it if it is accompanied by outrage from parents, questioning by police, and such societal factors.

So, unless BLs were in charge of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, it appears that this fact has been well known to psychologists for some decades. As cat has pointed out, modern studies show the same thing and modern psychologists are aware of this as well.

So, is it really the case that most of those who don't feel it is harmful most of the time want it very badly? I can't say that is the case. Certainly, they are bound to be the most vocal about it because those who aren't interested in adult/child sex have no motivation to be very vocal about their views. But I can't say I have any evidence that the majority of those who view harm as less prevalent are pedophiles.

As others have pointed out, I don't know how subjective most boylovers can be when dealing with something that they crave.

I think you meant objective.

So, does this mean that you are disqualifying your own views because you are a boylover? or is it only the views of the boylovers who disagree with you that must be discarded as being too subjective?

it makes me wonder how large of a sample THEY personally know about.

You don't have to wonder, you can just ask. As for myself...more than two.

I find it interesting that those who profess a deep love for boys would engage in an activity that has hurt so many boys.

We've been over this. We all engage in activities that have hurt countless boys. Everything from bike riding to roller skating carries a risk. That's why it all boils down to how significant the risk is.

But again I point out that those saying it doesn't hurt them all that often aren't in a position to be unbiased.

Neither are you.

I certainly agree that society at least ADDS to the harm. It also may be the major cause of the harm in some cases. But why does that matter?

See above.

I want to keep boys from being harmed.

Thus it is extremely important to know what the cause of the harm actually is and not just guess at it.

Riding a bike (or other such activities) doesn't carry any risk of emotional harm or social stigma. Riding a bike doesn't mess with a young boy's sexual and emotional developement.

Riding a bike carries risk of serious injury and death. One can become paralyzed for life because of a bike accident or being hit by a car while riding a bike. Are paraplegics not devastated emotionally? Is there no a social stigma attached to being handicapped (or, as those who would epxloit that social stigma would call them, "a cripple")? One could also suffer severe brain damage or even go into a coma and a vegetative state. If you're lucky, a serious bicycle accident will only result in your death. It's easy to argue that the consequences of the worst case scenario for a bicycle accident are far worse than the worst case scenario for having consensual sex with an adult. Thus again, it all boils down to what the risk of these outcomes actually is and how much of that risk is tolerable.

And I think it's obvious that when you take all the boys who have had sex with men and consider how many were harmed, it far outnumbers those bike riders who were hurt.

Despite the fact that you claim it to be obvious, you have not one single shred of evidence. What makes it so obvious then? It's obviously not anything objective.

Don't you find it interesting that the only people who even slightly accept this "risk factor" argument when it comes to sexualizing boys are boylovers?

Not at all. Only boylovers spend any time considering these things, so of course if anyone were to agree with this point of view it would have to be one who spends time considering it. That's not interesting at all, it's just common sense.