"You're talking about a man having sex with a boy, something their bodies weren't designed to do."

Running a chesse grater over my leg is something my body was not designed to do. Sitting in the middle of a furnace is something my body was not designed to do. Drinking petrol or acid was something my body was not designed to do. But male to male sex? The body is clearly capable of achieving ALL the sexual functioning of sex apart from procreation. It can be pleasurable, loving, bonding, intimacy building etc... We don't have to change or adjust our bodies in any way to achieve this. Most of the sexual activities a man and woman can enjoy together can also be enjoyed by two males. Now you could argue that a young male is not large enough to accomadate an adult male without suffering anal damage, but even if one avoids that particular position, very satisfying sex is still acheivable. Children are capable of errections and orgasms. All the functioning is there. In the light of that I think the design arguement is in favour of the sexual activity.

"What health benefit do you see coming out of man/boy sex?
Assuming the relationship was otherwise healthy; pleasure, intimacy, fun, bonding, love, zest for life, overwhelming happiness... just to name the ones that immediately spring to mind.


"Neutral reaction? The poor kid grows up to think sex between a man and a boy is normal and you call that neutral? I'm sorry, but sex between a man and a boy is not normal, regardless of what he was indoctrinated into believing. Did the story say if the boy on the outside thought it was neutral?"

So the "indoctrination" that sex is not normal is ok, but the "indoctrination" that sex is normal is not? To me it's indoctrination either way.
What one beleives about something certianly plays a crutial part in it's effect on you. However the harmfulness of the thing of itself stands aside from that.
Sex was a pleasurable and at least neutral aspect of this boys life. He was not traumatised by it.
Do you beleive that he was "indoctrinated" out of the trauma that should have been his to enjoy? This is the very propoganda that I'm so passionatley against. "The evidence SHOULD say that he was harmed BECAUSE man/boy sex IS harmful... if he wasn't harmed then he's been some how duped and he secretly IS harmed he just doesn't realise it." Sorry but that kind of starting point is unacceptable to me as a boylover.
I don't recall if the testimony mentioned the impact on the outside boy.


"I think it's quite possible to suffer harm without really knowing it. You may become aware of something being wrong or not quite right in some area of your life or way of thinking, but you may be unaware of where it came from."
I agree with you on this point. However, this is not trauma and I think is a common experience to almost anyone who has lived life. We all have our secret pains and hurts. But if they are not traumas then we can function reasonably well in life even with them. I'm sure most people do.


"you seem to be saying that having the desire to sex boys is no more difficult than having the desire to sex women. I disagree. Even without the social stigma, having the desire to sex boys is WAY more difficult than having the desire to sex women. I know because I have both."
I'd like to ask you why you find it more difficult?
I know why it is in my experience: a) because it's not allowed to have expression and going without is hard. and
b) becuse I'm viewed by society as a mosnter. They work hard to convince me that I'm sick and evil.
If I were to add your belief that sexing a boy would MOST LIKELY cause him harm I'd be very down on myself.
All of these problems are outside of the sexual desire itself. The point that I was trying to make was that being sexually attracted to a boy is not of itself traumatic. It's just as thrilling and pleasurable and desirable as any other orientations attractions would be. I contend that the traumas of a BL sexuality are all about how you VIEW having the sexuality... rather than the HAVING of the sexuality of itself. All the more reason not to buy into the propaganda!

"Just because someone has sex with a boy doesn't mean his sexual development is somehow negative or unhealthy."

"Yes it does. Being sexual with a man in no way helps him on his newly started journey to learn about sex with women. In fact, sexualizing any young person too soon impedes their normal sexual developement. This is true for sex between a boy and man, girl and man, boy and woman, girl and woman, boy and girl, boy and boy, and girl and girl. Of course there is the natural experimantation between young people. I'm talking about serious sexual encounters, with the emphasis on if it's too soon. When young people experiemnt, it's usually age appropriate as to when they engage in it and what they do. When an older person becomes involved, whether it be an adult or just another kid who is further along in their sexual developement, the older person generally will want to do things HE wants. The younger person may not object. He may even think it's fun or exciting to be doing "big boy" stuff. But he probably wasn't ready for it at this stage of his developement.

I just find lots of assumptions in this statement without much evidence to support them. You are simply repeating the "accepted" propaganda of our day.
I do find psychological studies that agree that engaging a child too soon in an area of development can have a negative impact on his/her ability to feel competent at succeeding. However, these studies show that different children are ready at different ages. Some are ready sooner than others.
It is very easy for me to think of boys in my own experience who have been very ready to explore sexually and I as an adult have had to encourage them to wait for a more appropriate occasion (ie: marriage).
And what if the adult who WANTS to do "big boy stuff" restrains that urge and just keeps it at the kid's level and only does the "little boy stuff" that the kid initiates and is "ready" for... would that hinder his development?

"This is where we really diverge, Cat. I don't believe men and boys can positively engage in sexual activity regardless of God's command. The best that can be hoped for if it does occur is that the boy isn't harmed."
To clarify, I don't think people can do anything "regardless" of God's command if that means "disregarding" God's command. What I meant was that if God had no command against it and the activity was not harmful then why shouldn't they enjoy it. (Naturally you don't agree regarding the harmlessness posibility in most cases.) Of course the presence of God's command makes mine a moot point.

"I don't see anything positive coming out of any sexual encounter with a boy. I am not trying to be patronizing or insulting here Cat. But are you sure you're not letting the way you wish for things to be to overshadow the way things are? In my own case, I have often fantasized about having a "positive" sexual encounter with a boy, often while masturbating. It's comforting to think that I can fulfill my heart and body's desire to be sexual with a boy and that he too would be edified by the experience. It certainly would be a masturbation turn off if I imagined that I might be harming the boy in any way. So for a brief time, I imagine he likes it, he wants it, he's getting something positive from it. While this will bring me a few minutes of pleasure, if I do it often enough, there is a danger I can "brainwash" myself into believing it. I have also visited a few of the erotic fiction sites that denote man/boy sex and boy/boy sex. I know I shouldn't go there, but I struggle with that from time to time. As you may or may not know, there are literally hundreds of fictional stories that boylovers have written depicting "positive" sex between two boys or a man and a boy. The stories are written the way the boylover authors wish things to be, not as they are. I must admit to letting my fantasies soar thru these staories. As I said before, it's comforting. But if I read too many of these fictional stories, I run the danger of believing they are true, or at least could be true. I think that's one of the reasons the Bible teaches us to be careful of what we let in our minds thru our eyes. So I just wanted to put that out there for your consideration.

I know the stories, and sure that's how I wish it could be. But I'm realistic enough to know that's not how it would be. A man/boy sexual relationship would have its grounding in reality. Like any relationship it would have its joys and its struggles. It wouldn't be all rosy and wonderful and you would have to maintain some adult/child dynamics for it to be successful. I don't think too many men who read those stories really think that those romantic whims are actual posibilities... any more than straight people believe in Hollywood movies. At least I hope not. They are escape from reality. I don't believe my view that man/boy sex is not always harmful or even mostly harmful is based on fictional erotic stories.

Lastly I don't thik it is dangerous to beleive that you could have a healthy sexual relationship with a boy. I actually think we need to believe it. Otherwise you will see yourself as a mosnter who's trying to convince himself that he's not.
In my fantasy where I give the boy pleasure and love and he reciprocates... I have to know that there IS a purity in there. That my love and desire for his well being is REAL even though it's sexual as well. I am ok as a boylover. I'm not a monster. The love I want to give a boy is achievble. It's just that the sex is not permitted and so I refrain from the sexual aspects and give him everything else I've got with a clear conscience and (I beleive) the blessing of God.

Blessings
Cat.