What you call common sense is not common sense at all. It's an assumption based on possibilities, not probabilities. The problem with your argument is that you're assuming the worst, which is just as wrong as assuming the best. I agree that it's better for a boy to go without an adult male mentor/friend than to have one and be molested. However, the benefits a boy can get from the non-sexual attentions of a man are too great to totally disqualify any man who has any kind of attraction to boys. A man's caring and attention towards a boy, even a boylover's, can be the difference between a boy growing into a well adjusted God loving man and him being drawn into drugs, or other self destructive behavior. Under your premise, no so called normal man should ever work with girls, since by nature, most males are attracted to females. But as you know, society has accepted the fact that men can be around girls without having sex with them. Generally, there are certain boundaries that are in place for everyone's protection and peace of mind. So why not use the same criteria with boys and boylovers?

Sexual attraction isn't black and white. It's a matter of degrees, as is the control one has (or doesn't have) on their attractions. Not all boylovers should work with boys, just as not all men should work with girls. If God has led you to decide that it's best for you if you stay away from boys, that's the path God has given YOU. It doesn't mean you're weaker or anything. It just means that is the path for YOU. To take a different path would be sin and probably not be to your benefit. But God sets different paths before different people. I am fully aware that many people choose their own path based on their own selfish desires and then call it "God's path." That's when disasterous things happen. But it's a disservice to boylovers, and more importantly it's a disservice to boys to paint the situation with such a wide brush that it leaves no room for God to work in any way except how you personally feel is appropriate.

Dakota