In Austraila at the moment churches are getting together and adopting a series of training called "safe spaces". A large part of it's focus is on child protection and safety issues within churches. They are training church leaders and anyone in churches that work with children.... seeking to create a consistent standard across the denominations.

Significantly, their information and research is quite up to date.

They are teaching that "pedophile" does not mean "child molsetor or preditor". They teach that pedophilia is nothing more than a sexual orientation, like any other, focused on pre-pubescents. They also use the term hebophile to descibe attraction to teens (even sugesting that most adult males are likely to be hebophiles).

They also teach that the majoirty of sex offenses in churches are not commited by pedophiles. They claim that the largest group of sexual offences against younger children are being perpetrated by 15 yo boys.

I know that words have different meanings for different people. For some people pedophile means child mollestor, for others it means attracted to children. For this reason you will not get a consenous of opinion on the subject.
For myself... the above information makes me think... if this is what is going to be taught to the people working with kids in the churches of my country... then I'm not going to go against them with a media-created, hype definition.

I can see your concerns newgeorge... but I think education, rather than debates over terminology is the better way to make a difference.
Personally, I like the label "boylover"... but I don't think it's that well known amongst non-boylovers and I also think that when people first hear it... it sounds sleasy. Perhaps it's too big a jump for people to go from thinking that only preditors and deviants want to sex kids to thinking that pedophiles actually do love and care about them.

Blessings
Cat.