Information for inquirers about sexually expressed boy/older male relationships.
Generally perceived wisdom is saturated with misinformation concerning sexually expressed boyhood relationships with older males, also known as "boylove." Some of these fallacies originate in academia from victimologically oriented social scientists and are then foisted upon the public by print and electronic media. Additional sources are religion and other superstitions, unfounded folk lore, various so-called "child protection" groups and organizations, including the operatives who profit from the lucrative "child sex abuse industry." There are also "youth rights," "child love," and similar factions who confuse and conflate the core issues of boylove with these other matters, making sometimes specious claims and posting confrontational "manifestos" that serve no useful purpose. Even web sites and forums purportedly supporting boylove provide sometimes mixed and questionable messages.
This presentation is intended to refute the current myths, superstition, misinformation, exaggeration, and outright lies; to avoid the clutter of irrelevant tangential matters; and instead to address the foundational issues of boylove by offering rational and reasonable facts, sensible observations, and references to research which is free from victimological biases.
Pedosexuality, the sexual attraction to children, is, so far as known, a genetically transmitted sexual attraction which in some cases is primary, but more often seems to be secondary to heterosexuality. The love of boys by older boys and men is a behavior based on that attraction, and most often is of a responsible nature:
Responsible boylove is a relationship between a boy who has a desire for a close and intimate friendship with an older male, and an older boy or man whose love for that boy encompasses enjoyment of the boy's companionship and a desire to provide a mentoring and nurturing environment. The nature, vitality, and duration of the relationship, as well as the extent of nurturing and mentoring, are determined by mutual consent, with the boy's wishes taking precedence. The relationship also includes a definite pedosexual attraction on the part of the older, and may include a desire for sexual experimentation, exploration, play, and gratification on the part of the younger. It is, however, a fundamental tenet of responsible boylove that any physical expression of sexuality is only acceptable with the age appropriate understanding, encouragement, and consent of the boy involved. However, both parties must also carefully take into consideration that any such physical expressions, no matter how completely consensual, are considered a criminal act under the present legal systems in most of the world.
In the broadest sense, boylove is the bilateral and reciprocal attraction between a boy and an older male, i.e., the love of a prepubertal or early adolescent boy FOR an older male, as well as the love of such a boy BY an older male; the latter typically manifested in a desire to responsibly protect, provide for, and mentor the boy. These attractions, by definition, have at least a latent sexual component which may or may not be actively expressed by mutual consent.
Are boylove and pedophilia the same thing?
"Pedophilia" derives from Greek words describing the nonsexual love of a child of either gender by any older person. However, in everyday use it has been corrupted into a pejorative descriptor for those - principally males - who force their sexual attentions on unwilling children, and who are perhaps more correctly described as "molesters" or "predators." Such irresponsible behaviors are the complete opposite of those of the responsible boylover.
When considering all the widely diverse elements that are indiscriminately lumped together under the heading of pedophilia, one is prone to think of the tongue-in-cheek description of a camel as a racehorse designed by a committee. In the jargon which currently seems to be in vogue, I would like to “deconstruct” that camel and examine both its components and its creators, i.e., those like Finkelhor (1981) who originated victimological theory and the basis for the “child sex abuse industry.”
First, even the word itself is corrupted and misused. “Pedophilia” (or “paedophilia” if one happens to be under the spell of the Queen’s English), comes from the Greek pais (child or youth, not gender specific, the combining form is paedo or pedo ) and philia (friendly love or affection – it would be eros if it meant physical or sexual love). So pedophilia is by etymology the non-sexual love of a child or youth – not sexual lust after a minor, as it has been corrupted in today’s usage. Every parent, grandparent, uncle, and aunt is – or at least should be - a pedophile.
Do all relationships between boys and boylovers involve sex?
No, research indicates that some 1/3 of self-identified boylovers refuse, for one reason or another, to allow sex to develop with boys, another 1/2 restrict themselves to situations in which the boy encourages the contact, while only about 1/6 unilaterally encourage or actively promote sex, with any form of coercion being extremely rare.
Most research is conducted with prison or clinical populations which are no in any way representative of the vast majority of boylovers. One study attempted to survey non-prison/non-clinical self-identified boy-attracted pedosexual males through the Internet, and received 517 responses. These respondents' own self classification, as of ages 18 through 21, showed that 33.4% did not, for various reasons, engage in sex with boys. Another 49.3% would only consider sexual activities if the boy plainly encouraged them, while only 17.3% promoted such acts themselves. Only 0.2% said they would use force, and after age 21 that percentage dropped to zero.
Are boys psychologically harmed by sexually expressed relationship with older males?
There is no valid empirical evidence that such relationships are intrinsically harmful to the boy, so long as they are consensual. Any harm that occurs either is because the boy did not consent and was assaulted; or is the result of cultural taboos which generate inappropriate reactions by parents, teachers, social workers, police, the judiciary, etc.
A cardinal assumption of victimological dogma is that sexual contact between a boy and an older male causes psychological harm that is pervasive and intense. If a boy is forced to do something he does not want to do, it seems reasonable that harm would ensue. But there are many studies that document willing participation, a lack of such harm, and/or positive benefits. Here are a few:
Bender, L. & Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, 7, 500-518.
Bernard, F. (1981). Pedophilia: Psychological Consequences for the Child. In L. Constantine & F. Martinson (Eds.) Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives. Boston: Little-Brown
Constantine, L. (1981). The Effects of Early Sexual Experiences. In L. Constantine & F. Martinson (Eds.) Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives. Boston: Little-Brown.
Gebhard, P., Gagnon, J., Pomeroy, W., & Christenson, C. (1965). Sex offenders: An analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row.
Ingram, M. (1981). Participating victims: A study of sexual offenses with boys. In L. L. Constantine, and F. M. Martinson (Eds.) Children and sex. Boston: Little, Brown, 177-187.
Lautmann, R. (1994). Die Lust am Kind [Attraction to children]. Hamburg: Ingrid Klein Pubs. Inc.
Okami, P. (1991). Self-Reports of "Positive" Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Contacts with Older Persons: An Exploratory Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(5), 437-457.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., Bauserman, R. (1998) A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53.
Rossman, P. (1976). Sexual Experiences between Men and Boys. London: Maurice Temple Smith.
Sandfort, T. (1987). Boys on their Contacts with Men. Elmhurst, NY: Global Academic Press.
Tindall, R. (1978). The male adolescent involved with a pederast becomes an adult. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 373-382.
Is a prepubescent boy capable of enjoying sex?
While boys cannot ejaculate until they reach puberty, they are capable of erections at birth. Self-stimulation is common, and even masturbation to "dry" orgasm. Boys typically investigate one another's genitals, this may involve mutual manual or oral (rarely anal) stimulus. Boys tend not to attach emotional significance to sexual activities; for them these satisfy curiosity and are simply pleasurable games which may continue well into adolescence. It is not uncommon for a boy to seek out a knowledgeable older male for information and cooperation in his investigations and games.
There are few who still try to cling to the childhood "sexual latency" theory that Freud endorsed. Erections have been observed in utero, boys are sometimes born with erections, and most caregivers have observed erections while changing a diaper. The predisposition of very young boys to openly "play with themselves" until they are shamed or punished into keeping their activities hidden from authority figures is indisputable.
The simple fact is that when stimulated, even a prepubertal boy's penis provides him with pleasurable sensations, and he is unlikely to be dissuaded from enjoying these pleasures, at least alone and in private.
As boys develop more independence, most will explore these genital pleasures with peers, and perhaps with older and/or younger persons, finding that the enjoyment is enhanced when it is shared. This can start very early, and tends to increase in intensity as the boy approaches and enters puberty. Wilson (1981) noted that "Young boys are sexually active from a very early age and will pursue their sexuality whenever they can find an opportunity to do so." (p. 134). While these liaisons typically involve other males early on, in mid to late adolescence they usually begin to shift toward females, and only rarely does attraction to peer or older males continue into adulthood.
Can boys consent to sex?
There are widely divergent opinions on what constitutes consent, about different levels of consent, and if children can give consent. One concept is that of the fully informed consent required for entering into binding contracts, etc. Another is that of simple willingness, i.e., does the boy "want to" do something that has no real consequences. There is no valid evidence that sexual exploration with another party has consequences other than those invented and imposed by society. Therefore there are no reasons why a boy cannot be willing, and thus give meaningful consent, to engage in such activities.
The denial of the right of a boy to consent to sexual interactions with other people, and especially with those older than himself, is foundational to victimology and the child sexual abuse industry; their entire house of cards comes crashing down if it becomes recognized that boys do, in fact, possess the innate ability to make choices and give consent to these activities. In order to prop up their dogma, "Priests, doctors, psychiatrists, and others have invested sex with magical powers ..." (Wilson, 1981, p. 129), and these paranormal qualities are claimed to be beyond the abilities of boys to comprehend, thereby negating any willingness the boys have to participate.
Wilson further noted that boys "saw sex as being no more than just a game... ." (ibid., p130), a point made by Sandfort (1984) and numerous other authors. The supposed drastic consequences of boyhood sexual encounters are not intrinsic to human nature, but are artificial cultural constructs of primarily Western origin, as is demonstrated by the benignity assumed by cultures which have not been corrupted by Western influence (Murray, 2002).
Boys' capacity to consent is presented as an accomplished fact by Bender & Blau (1937), Weiss et al. (1955), Sandfort (1987), and supported by the research of Waber et al. (2007), as well as by the American Psychological Association (1989) and many others. Boys are legitimate and sentient human beings with their own intrinsic sexuality, and are entitled by their very humanity to have their rights to their own sexuality recognized and respected by both academia and society.
How long do sexually expressed relationships between boys and boylovers last?
Research indicates that some 27% last for less than one year, 26% for one through two years, 25% for three through five years, 11% for greater than five years, and the rest for life. Generally speaking, in later adolescence these transition to a nonsexual adult friendship.
Do boys who are sexually involved with older males become homosexuals?
There is no credible evidence of any "cause and effect" between boyhood sexual explorations and adult homosexuality. Some of those who claim to be "gay" believe that they were aware of this supposed orientation in their boyhood, but this does not constitute causality.
The unsubstantiated assumption that such experiences will "cause" boys to become homosexual is a favorite tactical claim of those who would prevent boys from exploring their own sexuality with other males. There are no valid empirical data to support this conjecture, but it continues to resurface.
As discussed in the [more] supplement to the previous question, it is possible that some small fraction of adult male so-called homosexuals are really only unfulfilled loved boys, the end result of having their boyhood explorations frustrated. The average of three studies (see below) which looked at the percentage of self-identified gay males who reported boyhood sexual encounters with older males was about 20%, but this is only correlation, and should not be misinterpreted as causation. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of males who had a boyhood sexual relationship with an older male develop an exclusively heterosexual adult life.
Is boylove a mental illness?
The medical community does not recognize or address boylove as such. "Pedophilia" at one time was specifically listed as a mental illness by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), but currently is in a sort of limbo.
The social sciences, especially psychiatry, are gradually taking over the terrain which formerly was held by religion, with mental illness replacing sin, maladjustment replacing immorality, and psychiatric/psychological treatment replacing salvation. This is especially true in the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of so-called pedophilia, with the dogma of inevitable and pervasive harm to the younger "victim," and the tenet of convincing the "perpetrator" of the error of his ways and his need to do penance.
But these social sciences have a long history of misdiagnosis and maltreatment, going back to the vicious campaign against masturbation, and continuing through unethical research using children and homosexuality being defined as a pathology, on to such gems as the "Satanic ritual abuse" debacle, "recovered memories," and "multiple personality disorder," just to name a few. These errors have required that the "bible" of the social sciences, the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM), be revised periodically to reflect the latest mental health fads. The current version has a convoluted tripartite set of inconclusive diagnostic criteria for "pedophilia," yet still finds it necessary to fall back on the religious concept of morality: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act ...".
While the pronouncements of social scientists and mental health professionals carry considerable weight and are reported as fact and truth by the media, it is obvious that these self-proclaimed "experts" have a very questionable track record, and that they change their evaluations, diagnoses, and treatments according to whatever cultural wind happens to be blowing. Their current posture on "pedophilia" differs from that which preceded it, and there is no reason to believe that the present is any more valid or permanent than its predecessors.
Are all boylovers the same?
There have been attempts to differentiate "types" of boylovers. One of these uses seven "classes" of "self-identified boy-attracted pedosexual males," ranging from those who choose not to have sex with boys under any circumstances through those who will only engage in sex with the boy's encouragement, through those who will unilaterally promote sex, and ending with those rare few who employ force to obtain sex.
Why are all incidents of sexually expressed boy/older male experiences reported in the media as "crimes?"
Under the current statutes in most Western countries, every such experience, even if the boy insists that he consented to, encouraged, or even initiated it, is a criminal act on the part of the older partner. The media headlines this "vile crime," thus adding to the public hysteria, encouraging more invasive enforcement and Draconian punishments, influencing legislation, and reinforcing the vicious circle. One of the frequent side effects is that in the vigorous efforts to convince the boy that he has been "harmed," he is traumatized by his parents, the police, the judicial system, and the media, but then this trauma is blamed instead on the relationship.
Why do some websites and forums seem to address boy/older male sexuality in rather insensitive and offensive ways?
The Internet tends to be populated by extroverts who sometimes use revolting and abrasive tactics to draw attention to their agendas, and this is no less true in the world of boylove. Keep in mind that those boylovers who participate on the Internet are a minuscule fraction of a percent of the above postulated seven million in the US alone. Beyond that, those who post grossly objectionable ideas and observations on boylove sites are at most a small portion of that minuscule fraction. So these "shock jocks" represent practically no one but themselves, and might be compared to street hoodlums who make obscene remarks to passing females. However, since most of these sites respect First Amendment rights, only those individuals who clearly violate the law are likely to be restricted. It is probable that the majority of boylovers would prefer that these effronteries not be permitted, but there is no practical way to prevent them from being posted.
Table Showing Age Of Consent Laws Worldwide.
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
