User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers...

They said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who:

• "pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present)
• were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and early 20th centuries)
• and therefore, as do all homosexuals, they murder their "victims" (early to mid 20th century)

and they kidnap, rape, and kill "little children" (1930s to present)

• "recruit" young boys into homosexuality (1940s to present)

As each of the above myths was exposed as being false, new arguments were needed against BoyLove and BoyLovers:

• BoyLovers introduced "dirty" sexual ideas into the "clean minds" of asexual children
• BoyLovers were all "pederasts" who anally raped (therefore physically harming) "innocent" boys
• BoyLovers were selfish, narcissistic, and did not empathize with the feelings of boys
• BoyLovers "abandon" the boy as soon as he "ages out" of the BoyLovers preferential age of attraction

As each of these myths was then exposed as being false, they had to come up with even newer arguments:

• BoyLove is immoral, and--because sexual activity with a BoyLover exposes boys to the condemnation of society--the boys are being harmed.

This is a circular argument: Society condemns BoyLove because boys, if they engage in sexual activity with BoyLovers, are then subjected to condemnation by society if it is discovered. And therefore the boys feel shameful and guilty for having engaged in sexual activity with a BoyLover, and this shame and guilt is due to the fact that society condemns BoyLove.

How can we know that the above argument by the so-called "child savers" is deceitful, and actually just another excuse to ban BoyLove?

This is easily demonstrated by the actions of the "child savers" when they go beyond the borders of the U.S--to other cultures, where there are different moral codes.

For example, in most Asian countries--whose cultures are not based on Judeo-Christian morality--there is no guilt or shame felt by a boy who engages in sexual activity with a BoyLover.

Therefore, according to the reasoning of the "child savers"--which is that boys need to be "saved" from feeling guilt and shame (the guilt and shame which comes from being exposed to the condemnation by society) then there is no reason at all to condemn BoyLovers having sexual relationships with boys in cultures where boys feel no guilt or shame.

It's not about "saving children".

It's about furthering the goals of the antisexuals and sexophobes, and the spreading of their demonstrably harmful morality!

That is what it is really all about!