Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Re: What Counts as BL (part 1)

Posted by The King of Zembla on 2024-February-5 10:59:39, Monday
In reply to What Counts as BL (part 1) posted by LaudateAgno on 2024-February-4 18:21:09, Sunday

But the above provides a way of understanding what it is to be a BL: If you, as a man, want to engage in such practices, then you're a BL.

This just moves the goalposts from "What is a Boylover" to "What are the practices of Boylover?" Although you claim "What I find missing in so much discussion of sexual politics is a broader question of what boy love itself is", you don't provide a detailed description of the practices that qualify as Boylover practices, except "go look at greek-love.com". Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. But if you're presenting the argument, it might be good for you to detail just what you find convincing there.

Exact ages be damned

To say "exact ages be damned" almost immediately gets translated by the average BL as meaning "age doesn't matter." Your entire argument, and it's examples, in contrast, detail pederasty, where ages do matter. Pederasty isn't about boinking babies, even if the precise line of demarcation between young enough and too young can be hazy.

I recall reading Nambla activists opining about how normal it was for grannies in a culture somewhere to fondle or even fellate babies, hoping to get a buy in from the reader for an "exact ages be damned" philosophy of boylove. And we have seen this style of argument again and again on this site over the years, whenever the topic is raised. But such pastoral fantasies of pedophilia need to be tempered by recent hard evidence that suggests pedophilia is more complicated than the liberationists had understood at that time.

Here is a quote from something I've been writing:
Society is wrong for suppressing pederasty. But it is not nearly so wrong for suppressing pedophilia.

This is especially so because pedophilia has never had a culture until now. The depth and range and meaning of pedophilia has only recently begun to be considered. We are a part of this new chapter in the history of sexuality. We cannot say pedophilia arrived fully formed, or with its best foot forward. Instead, it arrived shoeless, in broken fragments, half on fire, half hidden, a great desire, a great fear, with panicked shouts from all sides, as something demonic, as something pure, as something... at the edge of the possible, somewhere beyond imagining. What it has never been is coherent.

Pederasty is coherent. It has histories. It has been tolerated at times, even celebrated to some extent. The nature of the relationship has built in conditions that lend to its self-correction. There Pharmakon's "Boys Decide" has some plausibility.

Consequently, within boylove, pederasty and pedophilia should never be confused. Pederasty is plausible and can be discussed, if not casually--I believe we should never speak casually about boylove--then at least with an air of realism about things that can actually happen. On the other hand, pedophilia is something we should speak of with the utmost caution, as something that should probably never happen, except perhaps under certain circumstances, and only with strict limitations.

We should not, out of some desire to make people feel welcome, pretend pederasty and pedophilia are indistinguishable and interchangeable. Neither should we bully pedophiles or demonize pedophilia.
You said:

But it is always this overarching, almost functional ideal that lies at the essence of boy love.

If you believe in a "functional" definition of boylove, then surely you agree that this function must be adapted according to age. There is no single function that applies to all ages. If you agree with me, then age cannot be disregarded in our analysis. We cannot say "Exact ages be damned."

I think after 50 years now that it's beyond clear that chaining pederasty to pedophilia has been a terrible political idea, no matter how pure the mathematics. Pederasty works. Pedophilia... only history can say.

And so I have come to the following conclusion. We should
  • Advocate for pederasty, and
  • Try to understand pedophilia
By understand I don't mean sympathize with. I mean the very fundamentals of pedophilia have not yet been well understood. The art of pedophilia has yet to be discovered. And it may never be discovered. (And it might turn out that what we have discovered would be better off remaining buried.)

And of course we should be sympathetic, without unnecessarily encouraging ideas that lead the unwary to their destruction, by pretending that a rigorous hike and a climb up a sheer cliff face are the same thing. Such careless days have to be far behind us.
This Space Reserved For Finally Being Serious


From his Throne,
The King of Zembla

The King of Zembla

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Don't annoy the cogs.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.