Hi Cat,

Thanks for the reply.

I am not feeling all that well. I was sick this weekend, and just started back at work today. Though I'm doing much better than Saturday, I'm still feeling a little "off". Let that be a disclaimer :-)

The book you mentioned, "From Victim to Abuser": Do you know the author's name? I tried to find it on Amazon, but wasn't able to. [I admit, I didn't look very hard.] I'd be interested in reading a bit more about it -- maybe even the whole book, at some point.

I don't know why I decided to stick my foot into a debate that was rolling along quite well without me :-) Well, I did, so I'll try to respond as best as I can -- but also briefly and to the point. Wish me luck.

Just because the book was titled with the word "abuser" doesn't mean they are actually abusers! The title reflects the opinion of the author, the media and the law.

Point taken.

He strongly believed that both relationships had been healthy and harmless. I can't remember how he got caught but he felt a great injustice had been done. I don't call that traumatised.

Fair enough. I only used the word "traumatized" because you used it first ;-) Perhaps a softer word would be more appropriate.

How does one define a "positive effect on sexual development"? Just because someone has sex with a boy doesn't mean his sexual development is somehow negative or unhealthy. Really, if it wasn't for God's command to the contrary I think men and boys could quite "positively" engage in sexual activity and why shouldn't they? Of course, God's command makes all the difference.

I'm going to get into trouble here for quoting statistics for which I have no research, but as 57% of the population has absolutely no problem with such statistics, I'll go ahead.

I guess for me the issue comes down to what I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as a correlation between those who are on the Y side of a A-Y sexual relationship later becoming the A side of a similar relationship (or having such desires, even if there is no follow-through). I have no proof, but it seems to me the correlation much surely be significant? You mentioned this book with four such examples. I know it's not always the case by any stretch -- for example, I was never in any A-Y sexual relationship, and yet I'm still attracted to boys.

But, assume for a moment there is a correlation. And, to simplify the argument, assume there is nothing intrinsically wrong with A-Y sexual relationships. [Like the examples you quoted -- all parties seemed to enjoy their respective roles.]

In these four cases. And yours and Dakota's, right? [And, I'm sure, many others on this board.] In all these cases, a boy involved in an A-Y sexual relationship (whether "positive" or "negative"), later grew up to have a sexual attraction to boys. Though I have no proof, I'm willing to bet that in many of these cases, had the A-Y sexual relationship NOT occurred, the boy would NOT have grown up with similar attractions, and the cycle would have been broken.

The "trauma" I was referring to was the affect the A-Y sexual relationship had on the sexual development of the boys -- in all these four cases, "robbing" them of the opportunity to develop a "normal", heterosexual identity.

I can see a few holes in my argument, but I'm going to stop there. I don't really have the time or energy for a major debate, so please go easy :-) [You, too, Blackstone!]

Blessings,
Rainboy