'Boylove is ephemeral' argument.

This argument (see Debate Guide for a generalized treatment) seems to be one of the weaker ones against boylove. I do not see how it counts as a con in the comparison of boylove with other kinds of attraction, since it is entirely plausible that a naturally beautiful boy will have exposure to multiple and different types of boylovers as he matures. Some boylovers are exclusively into very young, androgynous, prepubertal boys. Some boylovers are more into mid-adolescent boys who still retain some of those characteristics, while being more sexually mature. Others are more like gays - they like ephebes and college athlete type boys and sometimes fully adult men as well. If a boy has a basic intelligence about him, in addition to natural beauty, it is likely he will be able to benefit financially and in other ways from multiple relations with multiple boylovers. This would just be normal - it would become a pro of boylove relationships rather than a con. The boylove-is-ephemeral argument appears to be rooted in regressive social conservatism, relationship-model normativity, and slut-shaming. The only reason it is popular, is because it targets and unfashionable group - and therefore "liberals" will employ it selectively, suddenly becoming day-trip conservatives to hate on the "peedos".