High Boylover Priesthood

The High Boylover Priesthood is a phrase used on BoyChat to refer to people who attempt to define who is or is not a "real" boylover. It is not an actual group of people--that is to say, there is no actual "High Boylover Priesthood" functioning on BoyChat or anywhere else--but rather represents an abstract type of person who attempts to act as a gatekeeper for boylove.

Origin

Initial definition

The phrase was originally coined by Dylan Thomas in an argument on the now-defunct Freedom Board with another poster who insisted that no real boylover would be interested in anal sex with a boy. However, in the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that the context in which it was not related to the sexual aspect of the conversation, but rather to the idea that one individual's opinion should somehow serve as the measure for what is a "true" boylover for the entire community.

Clarification

As such, a person who claims, "A real boylover would always have sex with a boy," is as much a member of the High Boylover Priesthood as the person who claims, "A real boylover would never have sex with a boy." The important issue is not sex, but rather the attempt to define the ethics of the community unilaterally.

The truth is that there is no more consensus amongst the boylove community about what is or is not "correct" behavior for a boylover than there is amongst heterosexuals as to what is or is not "correct" behavior for a heterosexual. Some people believe that all sexual expression is wrong, while others engage in acts of drawing complicated lines to dictate appropriate behavior (such as, "No sex until age eight," or, "Only oral sex before age thirteen"), while others believe that anything to which the boy consents should be acceptable. While there is of course some small consensus in the community about the extremes (an act of rape is considered wrong, for example), many people both inside and outside the community attempt to muddy the waters by implying consensus which do not exist (for example, "anal sex is intrinsically harmful") and then apply this personal opinion to the community as a whole. This fallacy inspired the expression "High Boylover Priesthood".

Failed searches for the Priesthood

About a year after the coinage of the expression, a small group of offended posters began a search for the actual "High Boylover Priesthood," apparently confusing what was a heuristic device with a real entity. These individuals clearly misunderstood the concept and used the fact that no actual priesthood exists as their justification for continuing to act as a type of High Boylover Priesthood. To prevent further confusion of this sort, Dylan Thomas once again clarified the definition as follows:

"Anyone who attempts to unilaterally define for all boylovers what a 'real' boylover would or would not do is acting as High Boylover Priesthood. It is not a question of whether the person approves or disapproves of sex or whether the person likes older or younger boys. It is simply a question of whether or not a person is trying to establish his personal opinions or tastes as some sort of standard for the community." (BoyChat post, around 23 September 2005)

Historical antecedents

In the earliest days of BoyChat, up until sometime in 1997, there was a rather vocal group of posters who claimed to be boylovers but who also claimed to not experience sexual attraction of any sort for boys. They would typically talk about boys in such terms as "angels," "the most special creatures on earth" and so on. It was common for them to share boy moments and link to stories or pictures of cute boys. But anyone making an erotic comment about any of the boys in the stories or pictures would usually be reprimanded by this group of posters.

Some of these individuals, who might have later been labeled with the epithet of "High Boylover Priesthood," believe that by avoiding sexual contact with boys, they can gain the acceptance of the general population. This idea is rejected by most boylovers, since many people strongly object to the idea of a man being attracted to a boy even if the man avoids engaging in actual sexual contact. Proof of this objection can be found in many recent child molestation and child pornography laws, which have been rewritten to criminalize thoughts and motivations instead of particular actions.

Starting in 1997, most of this group left BC or mostly stopped posting, although a couple of exceptions remain. That many people who hold this belief are often very vocal, and thus more likely to make the types of statements which would seem to come from the High Boylover Priesthood, is perhaps in large part the origin of the current misconception that the term primarily refers to one's position on sex with boys.