Illusory? All the documented cases of kids being harmed for whatever reason by having sex with an adult and you call that illusory?

That was a statement made in relation to whether such relationships should be normalized and decriminalized. Thus current social norms are obviously being ignored since that is what we would seek to change to begin with.

If I were discussing the repeal of anti-marijuana legislation and claimed that marijuana is not harmful, it would be silly for someone to say "really? not harmful?? what about all the people who wind up in prison because of it?!". No, I don't actually believe marijuana is not harmful, I'm just making a point.

Are you suggesting that God sets forth a set of rules and standards that are for reasons other than our own good?

What I said was that our beliefs should guide our actions but they should not be forced upon others. The questions: what is sinful?, what should be illegal?, and what should we accept or tolerate as a society? are separate questions with separate answers that may or may not always be the same.

It's really disheartening to share a personal shortcoming here on this "Christian" board and then get slapped in the face with it.

I apologize. That's not how I meant for that to come across. I wanted to take it back right after posting it and would have, but I figured as a mod you would see the edit anyway so what was the point in removing it?


I don't discount any evidence, but it seems you do exactly that by largely ignoring the many cases of harm.

I have not ignored any case of harm. I have stated time and time again in almost every single discussion I have ever had on this topic that the fact people have been harmed by sexual contact with adults as minors is beyond question. I said it on this very thread just two posts ago when I said: Neither is the question whether such relationships can be harmful, for we know they can be as well. I have never questioned that fact, I have reinforced it over and over again, and I continue to accept and acknowledge it. My view is based on the totality of evidence from both sides and does not require me to discount any evidence.

I find it totally unacceptable to put a child at risk at all when the only benefit to such behaviour is satisfying the lustful desires of a man.

That is a cost-benefit analysis. We can break it down into the following parts:

1. You feel that satisfying the lust of the adult partner is not worth any risk, no matter how small it may be.

2. You believe that sex only serves the purpose of satisfying the lust of the adult partner.

3. Thus the actual risk of harm is irrelevant since we know it to be above 0.

There are two problems with your cost-benefit analysis. The first is that this cost-benefit analysis applies only to you since item number 1 is subjective. Someone willing to tolerate a 0.05% risk of harm would find your analysis useless since it does nothing to attempt to establish what the risk and consequences really are. Thus, while this analysis works well for you, it is of no value to anyone who disagrees with you about number 1.

The second problem with your analysis is that number 2 is a questionable assumption. You know for a fact evidence contradicting it exists because I already provided you with access to such evidence. You know you haven't examined the evidence. Thus you know that you lack the knowledge necessary to know whether item 2 is factually correct. Yet you accept it on faith alone. If item 2 is incorrect, your analysis falls apart.

So to argue about risk factors in the light of the severity of harm that can happen seems rather cold, especially coming from a "boylover."

We choose to tolerate risks that could lead to severe harm all the time. Driving, swimming, riding a bike. All of these things carry the risk of severe harm. Traffic accidents can cause: severe brain damage, dismemberment, crippling injury, prolonged comas, vegetative states, and even death. It can even cause psychological trauma as severe as being molested would. Yet we still put our YF in a car and take him out, sometimes for something as trivial as an ice cream cone.

It isn't that the potential harm that would result from his getting hit by a car while riding his bike or while in the passenger seat next to us is less than the potential harm he might suffer from having sex with us. It's that the level of risk is different (and in our case, that our beliefs dictate it).

Risks of harm are often severe yet we coldly accept them. That's the way life works.

The results of studies can be scewed by those doing them, and you don't want to acknowledge the studies that show the opposite of what you want to believe

I sure do acknowledge them. I have never once claimed that there is no risk of harm. Not a single time have I done that. My point of view takes into account both sides of the argument without the need to ignore evidence on either side.

But I base my belief on the many cases of harm that have been documented.

Yet many cases of the opposite have been documented as well. I would invite you to read Loving Boys by Dr. Brongersma for a fairly exhaustive list of such documented cases. Why don't you base your belief on those?

It's as wrong to base it on one set of anecdotes as it is to base it on the others.

The only thing "many cases" prove is that a certain outcome is possible. Having accepted that, we need to move beyond such preliminary findings and on to the more interesting questions. The questions I find most intriguing are, what is the difference between those cases where it has caused harm and those where it has been a positive or neutral experience? What do they have in common? What is it that causes some people to experience it one way and others to experience it another way? Which situation is more common? Which is more likely? How big is that risk? How many of those whose experience were negative had an experience with a boylover as opposed to another type of pedophile?

You know, Blackstone, there are a great many people who believe and accept that sexual relations between men and boys is wrong and harmful. Some are from the secular world and others are from the religious world, from the Pope on down. And there might, just might, be one or two that are smarter and better informed than you.

Or there might not. What difference does it make either way? Arguments need to stand on their own regardless of who might be expounding them.