Nothing amiss with boylove being ephemeral

I suspect that if you were more detached from the assumptions of the depraved culture you were brought up in and had some historical perspective, you might see that you are missing the really important reason the "Boylove is ephemeral" argument is misguided and irrelevant. It's almost the opposite of what you imagine. Contrary to wokethink, there have been extremely sound functional reasons why it is highly desirable that heterosexual love should aim to be lifelong. The lifelong form, uncorrupted by modern social approval of divorce and the heartless concept of sex purely for pleasure, is traditional marriage and its function is to be the foundation stone for a new family, for which stability is extremely useful. The invention of marriage enabled fatherhood, making it possible to know who the father was (for both society and the father himself) and was possibly the most important advance early hominids made towards being more successful than other apes. By contrast, all the advantages and functionality of boy-love for the boy lie in its lasting only a few years. Boys are not girls. The last thing they need at thirteen or any approximate age is a lifelong commitment. What they need is to experience love (with accompanying sex to give it its full power) as a rite of passage and as a means of bonding deeply with someone able and willing to support that passage despite knowing that the boy's need will disappear once it has been fully answered. In any case, any argument made today that only lifelong love is good is immediately invalidated by widespread practice and social approval of divorce. I'm not sure if there's anything more despicably hypocritical than 21st-century man congratulating himself on his moral superiority to his ancestors on the grounds of their not having bound themselves to others for "love", as if he more than rarely had the faintest concept of what that really means. www.amazon.com/dp/1481222112