My whole point was that when trauma to a boy occurs, exactly where it comes from and why is irrelevant when it could have easily been avoided by using a little self control. So for arguments sake. let's say the boy enjoyed the experience and didn't become traumatized till he was bombarded with the taboo aspect. Does this make the trauma any less real? Using the previous assumption (which I am in no way implying I believe to be true) society would be more at fault than the boylover/molester. So does playing the blame game help the boy one iota? Society is not going to change in the near future, so debating on where the trauma comes from is pointless. If you truly love the boy, you wouldn't want to subject him to that. This is mainly an argument for non-Christians since The Bible teaches that all sex outside of marriage is wrong. But thinking of the harm it could do helps ME when my spiritual batteries are a bit low, and may help others.

And to say that whenever a boylover becomes sexual with a boy he becomes a mollester is simply ridiculous to me.

You can argue with Webster about it's dictionary's definition if you want, but being sexual with a boy makes you a molester, at least during the time you are being sexual/molesting him. It is what it is. But I'm not in any way saying if someone molests a boy at some time they are a molester for life, any more than I would say that if someone ever steals something he is a thief for life. But during the time that someone is stealing something, he's a thief.

To say that something may cause serious harm is not enough reason to completely avoid it or right it off as always wrong.

I think it's more than enough reason. If you took all the boys who were sexual with an adult and figured out the percentages of those that were harmed in any way or regretted it later, and that percentage was the same regarding how often you were hurt whenever you took a drive, I'd never drive again, and I doubt you would either.

This is the very view that causes all that social trauma to what may other wise have been a loving or pleasurable experience for some boys.

I think you vastly over-estimate how many boys consider sex with an adult as loving and pleasurable. Let me be blunt here. If a boy gets his dick sucked, it's going to feel good. That doesn't mean it's loving and pleasurable for him. It just means his body is reacting to physical stimuli as it was designed to. The ironic part is that "feeling good" will often just confuse the poor kid. He may not like what is happening, he may even be disgusted by it. This may cause him to ask himself "so why am I getting off?" "Am I gay?" "Am I a pervert?" He doesn't need that kind of confusion when he is just started to have sexual feelings.

If you try and use the "it may cause terrible harm" arguement the pro-sexers will simply pull out their multitude of examples and testimonials of where it hasn't and dismiss you.

Multitude of examples? If you know of any multitude of example, please post the links. I've read a few. I've read a lot more of the other kind from both boys and adults molested as boys. If there was a multitude of examples of how unharmful boysex is, I tend to think the pro-boysex people out there would surely have posted them to defend their position.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Whatever benefit a man can have in a boy's life can be had without being sexual with him. I see absolutely no advantage to the boy in having sex with a man beyond the possibility for some physical pleasure. I can accept the fact the boy is not ALWAYS harmed by having sexual relations with an adult. What I do not accept or believe is that this happens very often. I believe it is much more likely to cause the boy some amount of distress, sometimes a little distress, sometimes a whole lot to the point of affecting the rest of his life in a negative way. So if a person truly loves the boy, what possible reason would cause him to take such a chance?

Thanks for the reply.