The problem with BoyLovers and the BoyLove movement

There a many attributes of BoyLovers and the BoyLover movement that could be seen as problematic. This article addresses some of those issues.

Problems with BoyLovers

The question of intelligence

Most BoyLovers are not very intelligent. The majority of BoyLovers are of only average intelligence, while a smaller number fall into the range below and above average intelligence.

"Intelligence" can be briefly defined as one's capacity for:

• logic
• abstract thought
• understanding
• self-awareness
• communication
• learning
• emotional knowledge
• memory
• planning
• creativity and
• problem solving.

It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. A knowledge of vocabulary (within ones native language) is a fairly reliable measure of intelligence, and is part of most intelligence tests. Those who cannot spell correctly, or who misuse vocabulary terms can often be correctly assumed to be less intelligent, and the greater the number of errors, the less intelligent a person tends to be.

The highly intelligent pederastic BoyLover is relatively rare, while the genius pederastic BoyLover is even more rare. The highly intelligent pedophilic Boylover is even more rare, as they are a small subset of all BoyLovers, and a pedophilic genius BoyLover is exceedingly rare. (These numbers can be calculated by estimating the total number of homosexuals in the population, then estimating the subset of this population who are pederasts, and then the even smaller subset of pedophilic homosexuals.)

What this means in practice

It is important to consider both percentages and absolute numbers. While larger groups in society will have a relatively larger number of intelligent members, and may even include some geniuses, the smaller the group, the less likely that this will be the case. The relative number of highly intelligent or genius BoyLovers (the percentage) may be similar to the relative number in the general population, but the absolute number of those BoyLovers will be very small.

Intelligent BoyLovers (including those who are pederasts as well as those who are pedophiles) have an advantage over their less-intelligent cohorts. And the more intelligent the BoyLover, the greater the advantage is, in terms of "seeing and understanding the bigger picture" and "knowing how things fit together".

But being intelligent, no matter how highly intelligent one is, is not enough. Education is very important. Without a good education, whatever native intelligence a person may have may not be able to be used effectively. While the uneducated BoyLover may sense that some argument set forth by the antis is somehow "wrong," he may not be able to put his criticisms into words.

The uneducated BoyLover may also not be able to recognize the fallacies--or the truths--contained in arguments made by those debating the topics of pedophilia and BoyLovers, or be unable to recognize the non-scientific basis of entire fields of (so-called ) "knowledge". For instance, the myth that psychiatrists are genuine scientists who base their knowledge on empirical study.

Worse, many unintelligent and less-intelligent BoyLovers (and some of even the more-intelligent BoyLovers) have drunk the Kool-Aid and accept without question the myths and outright lies disseminated by the antis

A BoyLover who is highly intelligent, well educated, and highly informed qualifies as an authority whose opinions tend to be very reliable and should be afforded a great deal of respect.

The problem of recognizing intelligence

Intelligent people can generally recognize other intelligent people. But less intelligent people may not be able to recognize more intelligent people, and the lesser the degree of intelligence one possesses, the more likely it is that this will be the case. As the saying goes, "Stupid is as stupid does"

BoyLovers as "authorities"

Because of the small number of highly intelligent BoyLovers, there is a dearth of BoyLover experts or authorities on BoyLove. And the relatively small number of those who are experts or authorities are often depreciated and their authority is questioned on the Internet by the less-intelligent Boylovers, as well as by the general public. or have been cowed into silence by the histrionics of the media and persecution by the law enforcement agencies.

Problems in the BoyLove movement

The disappearance of the intelligent BoyLovers

Being generally intelligent, informed, and educated is not sufficient when dealing with governments who have decided that a particular field of knowledge is not be be explored, and who will take extreme steps to prevent such exploration. A naive expectation that constitutional protections apply to, and laws will be justly enforced regarding, those deemed "outlaw groups" by the government has led to the downfall of many intelligent BoyLovers, robbing the movement of some of its most important members.

Many intelligent BoyLovers have not realized the importance of remaining "squeaky clean" and have maintained collections of images which are either illegal or may be of questionable legality when possessed by a BoyLover, which has led to their arrest and prosecution.

As a condition of parole, many BoyLovers are denied access to the Internet, which in today's world means that their voices are essentially silenced.

The current crippled BoyLove movement

NAMBLA has suffered at the hands of COINTELPRO-type operations. , which has severely impacted its ability to influence the public.

In Europe, a number of pro-pedo organizations have suffered as well and have either had to curtail their operations or disband.

Given the history of the COINTELPRO operations, it is reasonable to assume that most--or even all--BoyLover groups have been infiltrated by the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies.

What this means in practice

Most current pedophile activities, if engaged in at all by any organized group, tend to be led by less-intelligent BoyLovers (see the definitions above).

Many of these BoyLovers may be completely unqualified for the positions which they occupy, whether they be as the administrators of forums for BoyLovers, the administrators of wikis for BoyLovers, or individuals maintaining BoyLover blogs. (A notable exception is Tom O'Carroll's excellent blog "Heretic TOC | Not the dominant narrative" .)

Some may be overly sensitive to or completely intolerant of intelligent criticism (as are many unintelligent as well as intelligent people), and may censor and attack others who criticize them.

Recently, the administrator of one BoyLover resource questioned the following statement by an intelligent, educated, well-informed and authoritative contributor:

"Greek boylove is not relevant to modern-day BoyLove."

Apparently this administrator is not very well read, nor is he very well informed, as he is not familiar with the conclusion (echoed elsewhere) which is found in chapter one, GREEK PEDERASTY AND MODERN HOMOSEXUALITY, by Jan Bremmer, an acknowledged expert in Greek, Roman, early Christian and contemporary religion, social history, and the historiography of ancient religion, in the text From Sappho to De Sade: Moments in the History of Sexuality :

"As we have seen, Greek pederasty fundamentally differed in form and function from modern sexuality. Admittedly, the Greek situation offered great opportunities to those males whose sexual interest mainly concerned other males, but this preference had to be limited to boys and, moreover, the passive and active roles in these relationships were sharply defined. In addition, this preference had to be propagated with moderation, without completely excluding the opposite sex. At the same time, the aspect of initiation into the adult world illuminates an even more important difference between Greek pederasty and modern ways of homosexuality. Whereas modern homosexuals often occupy a marginal position in society and are regularly considered to be effeminate, in Greece it was pederasty that provided access to the world of the socially elite; it was only the pédérastie relationship that made the boy into a real man. The Greeks, then, certainly knew of 'Greek love' and their interest in boys was never purely platonic, but they did not, in any sense, invent homosexuality!" (p.11)

This demonstrates the administrator's error when criticizing the statement, cited above, made by the intelligent, educated, well-informed and authoritative contributor.

In essence, today's BoyLover movement is a good example of "the blind leading the blind" while the "one-eyed man in the land of the blind" may think himself King, and exercise dictatorial powers--however "benevolent" they may consider them to be --as head of whatever group he has succeeded in becoming the head of.

At the same time, the highly educated, experienced, knowledgeable, and authoritative BoyLover, rare as he may be, tends not to be fully appreciated, and may even be censured and attacked. He may also be ostracized from whatever pro-pedo group he belongs to, despite the fact that he may be a valuable contributor to that effort.

See also

• (to be added)
• Pro-pedo activism
• BoyLover mistakes leading to arrest and conviction