Why are there so many BLs?

[Talix]

I admittedly spend a lot of time in BLs spaces, being a BL myself. But even when I poke around explicitly not BL spaces like B4um, I've noticed a consistent trend: there seem to be at least as many BLs as GLs. This even though in general there are way more straight men than gay men.

(Separate topic, but there also seem to be at least ten times as many men in these spaces as women. Though there is maybe some explanations for this: paraphilias in general seem to be more common in men.)


I can think of two theories for why this is. The first is that BLs are more complicated then just the intersection of gay and MAP. That being a BL is some kind of phenomenon separate from minor attraction in general. This could mean that there are way more BLs then the general rate of homosexuality and the general rate of minor attraction would imply.

One theory might be that BL is a result of some kind of cross wiring of sexual attraction and parental instincts. Evidence for this would be that BLs seem to really like simply being with boys, even when they can't have sex with them. I feel like I haven't seen the same desire to simply be with women among straight teliophile men. And lot's of BLs have said to me that there minor attraction has a strong "nurturing" element to it. So maybe BL is more complicated than simple sexual and romantic attraction?


The other explanation is that the ratio of BLs to GLs is the same as the ratio of gay to straight (and bisexual) men in the general community. It's just that way more BLs make it to internet chat rooms than GLs.

For example, I've heard people posit that maybe GLs don't feel as socially ostrasised because straight minor attraction is more socially acceptable since it's at least straight.


I'm kind of inclined to think there really are more BLs than the ratio of straight to gay men would suggest. I say this for two reasons: first, yeah GLs might be more socially acceptable than BLs. But I don't think they are THAT more socially acceptable. Straight pedophiles are certainly ostrasised too.

Second, the oversupply of BLs really is so big. The generally cited number I've heard is that around 10% of the population is bisexual or homosexual. For MAPs online, the ratio is like maybe 50/50. And it's been a persistent imbalance too: the first wave of MAP of activism (PIE, NAMBLA) was overwhelmingly gay as well. The imbalance is just too big for me to easily dismiss as a representation issue.

Thoughts?

[BLueRibbon]

I think the ratio of BL:GL, if you're talking about true preference for minors and not adult-attracted men additionally being attracted to teens, is very different to the ratio of homosexual:heterosexual orientation in primarily adult-attracted men.

But why?

[WandersGlade]

For example, I've heard people posit that maybe GLs don't feel as socially ostrasised because straight minor attraction is more socially acceptable since it's at least straight.

Not so much. I'd say it's the other way around. A homosexual AAM can become a homosexual MAP, so there's kind of a closed loop amongst homosexual MAPs (especially significant in the past, because homosexual boys could receive support and mentorship from homosexual MAPs, when no one else could help them).
Also, the body of a mature woman is much more different from a little girl, when compared with the difference between boys and men; I think the body of a little girl is more repulsive to teleiophilic heterosexual man, than the body of a little boy is to a teleiophilic homosexual man, since the difference isn't just hair, height etc. it's also the very shape of the body that changes. I could be wrong, but I feel like the strict barrier between homosexual MAPs and homosexual teleiophiles is much more artificial/recent, though I can understand why people are insistent on it.

As to under representation, I'd say it has to do with most heterosexual male MAPs being apolitical hedonists, religious (e.g. child marriage is OK, but sex for pleasure and masturbation not so much), and/or heterosexual men lacking a sense of community/identity when compared with LGBT people.
Also, I think because LGBT people have to fight against shame and guilt about sex already so the LGBT community makes an effort to portray those relationships/desires as important, therefore sex-positivity doesn't feel as self-indulgent to them. In contrast, to enjoy sexual things as a heterosexual man is to be sleazy and self-indulgent, neither of which encourage engagement with politics.
(I should also note that men's rights activists are heavily invested in getting heterosexual women that have sexual relations with young boys recognized as molesters, since it's a double standard that they can easily draw attention to for their cause).

[Fragment]

I agree with your premise. About 10% of the population is supposed to be same-sex attracted, which gives a 90:10 ratio. However, if you look at mixed spaces like B4U-Act or even the prevalence of isolated spaces BC/ BLOL/ BM vs GC/ VoA there seems to be a roughly even split.

The first question is "does that 50:50 split hold across the general population?" I'm inclined to say "no". If you look at parts of the pediverse and other lolicon/ shotacon communities the heterosexuals usually dominate. I wouldn't say that they dominate in a 90:10 kind of way, but maybe closer to 70:30. It's definitely not split 50:50.

So there's two parts to that. The first is about there being different mechanisms for minor attraction than adult attraction. While I don't think there's any evidence on it (something we should encourage B4UAct to get its researchers to look into more), I definitely think that's the case. A boylover is not simply "gay x MAP", a girllover is not simply "straight x MAP". So if the mechanism is different, the ratios will naturally be different.

Also, the body of a mature woman is much more different from a little girl, when compared with the difference between boys and men; I think the body of a little girl is more repulsive to teleiophilic heterosexual man, than the body of a little boy is to a teleiophilic homosexual man, since the difference isn't just hair, height etc. it's also the very shape of the body that changes.

I understand what you are saying here, but in my experience in the community I've felt that more girllovers are non-exclusive than boylovers. There are also not-insignificant numbers of boylovers who like minor boys and adult women. From my point of view as a BL the adult female body is closer to that of a child in terms of suppleness, hairlessness, lack of muscularity, etc, many of which are the traits I find attractive. I see adult men as gorilla like compared to adolescent boys and I have very little interest in them.

So anyway, while the numbers may be different compared to adult attracted people, I still think GLs outnumber BLs (if you include lolicon fans). So where are they? Well, given what WandersGlade said, I don't know if this is accurate, but one of my first guesses is that they are less exclusive and therefore off dating 20 year olds.

I think the lack of marginalization may place a bit of a role. The way I'd imagine it is that by recognizing you are same-sex attracted you've already crossed the line into a deviant sexuality. You've already had to do all the emotional work that is associated with realizing you are "different". The next step to realizing you're a BL is a little different, but it's essentially a similar process of self awareness. GLs, meanwhile, until they notice the age gap are able to think of themselves as normal. For me, at 14 liking boys in the grade younger was itself a sign of "difference". For a GL, being 14 and liking 13 year old girls is just "normal". So in this way I think the hurdles for a GL to acknowledge their "difference" can be harder. Again on the lolicon fans, but how many of them reject the label of MAP, despite spending most of their sexual energy on fictional underage girls.

Another thing is just simply history. BL has existed as a distinct political identity for longer than GL. I think the "closed loop" theory that WandersGlade posited definitely explains a lot of that. The "loved boys" grew up to be part of the same LGBT movement that, in the early days, accepted NAMBLA, etc.

Those are my thoughts anyway. None of them are really proven. It might be that BLs are as rare among MAPs as adult attracted gays are among teleiophiles once we get a fuller picture of the data. And that's all even assuming that "MAP" itself is a psychologically distinct category- we use it as an identifier for political unity, but psychologically it's possible that hebephile brains and attraction have more in common with teleiophile brains and attraction than to pedophile ones (just as an example). Without reducing the stima around minor attraction we will never be able to get an accurate picture of how things are.

[WandersGlade]

I understand what you are saying here, but in my experience in the community I've felt that more girllovers are non-exclusive than boylovers. There are also not-insignificant numbers of boylovers who like minor boys and adult women. From my point of view as a BL the adult female body is closer to that of a child in terms of suppleness, hairlessness, lack of muscularity, etc, many of which are the traits I find attractive. I see adult men as gorilla like compared to adolescent boys and I have very little interest in them.

A theory I toyed with was that male homosexuality isn't actually opposite to heterosexuality. It's more like heterosexual male desire + desire for masculine traits, for example, androgynous boys/men. However, I've heard hairiness is often attractive to homosexual teleiophiles. Years ago I was trying to work out how it all fitted together based off of something I read about the brains of homosexual men being similar to heterosexual women

"The size of INAH3 in the homosexual men's brains was comparable to the size of INAH3 in the heterosexual women's brains."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a ... _structure
and about the comparison of the stria terminalis in both transgender women and pedophiles and also two other things.

The central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) is sexually dimorphic. On average, the BSTc is twice as large in men as in women and contains twice the number of somatostatin neurons. A sample of six post-mortem, long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) treated trans women (male-to-female) were found to have a female-typical number of cells in the BSTc, whereas a trans man (female-to-male) was found to have a male-typical number. The authors (Jiang-Ning Zhou, Frank PM Kruijver, Dick Swaab) also examined subjects with hormone-related disorders and found no pattern between those disorders and the BSTc while the single untreated male-to-female transsexual had a female-typical number of cells. They concluded that the BSTc provides evidence for a neurobiological basis of gender identity and proposed that such was determined before birth.

Reduction of the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis has been observed in pedophilic male perpetrators, in addition to reductions in the right amygdala, hypothalamus and abnormalities in related structures. The authors propose that childhood deficits in the BNST and medial amygdala may cause inhibition of sexual maturity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis
The ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus and the preoptic area:

In rats, oxytocin and vasopressin are associated with maintaining maternal care through local release in the mPOA and the adjacent bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST). Oxytocin and vasopressin V1a receptor binding are increased in both the mPOA and the BNST in lactating rats when compared to controls.[3] The mPOA also has a high density of estradiol receptors that, when activated, can cause a male rat to show maternal-type behaviors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preoptic_area

The ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (VMN, VMH or ventromedial hypothalamus) is a nucleus of the hypothalamus. In 2007, Kurrasch et al. found that the ventromedial hypothalamus is a distinct morphological nucleus involved in terminating hunger, fear, thermoregulation, and sexual activity.

The VMHvl contains many distinct neuronal populations that contribute to varying, often distinct, functions.[17] Notably, this region plays a role in sexual behaviors in females (lordosis), thus stimulating their sexual arousal. The VMHvl has also been found to play a role in estrogen-mediated movement [22] and energy expenditure/thermogenesis.[23]

In West Germany, at least 70 men had their VMN operated on between 1962 and 1979. Most of these individuals had been involuntarily institutionalized or imprisoned for deviant sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, perceived hypersexuality among heterosexual men, and pedophilia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventromed ... pothalamus
My logic was that if homosexual men and transgender women are two kinds of femininity in biological males, and pedophilia is a third kind of femininity. I imagined feminine behavior in males which were neither gay, nor transgender women would be an indication that they are a MAP. I used AI and set theory to create a kind of taxonomy for this:

Using set theory, we can represent the overlaps and differences between the brains of transgender women, homosexual men, heterosexual women, and pedophiles as follows:
Let T represent the group of transgender women, H represent the group of homosexual men, W represent the group of heterosexual women, and P represent the group of pedophiles.

INAH3:

T ∩ H: The size of INAH3 in the brains of transgender women and homosexual men is comparable to that of heterosexual women.
(T ∪ H) ∩ W: The size of INAH3 in the brains of transgender women, homosexual men, and heterosexual women is different from that of pedophiles.

BSTc:

T ∩ W: Transgender women who have undergone long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and heterosexual women have a female-typical number of cells in the BSTc.
H: Homosexual men have a male-typical number of cells in the BSTc.
P: Pedophiles have a reduction in the size of the BSTc.

VMN:

T ∪ H ∪ W: Transgender women, homosexual men, and heterosexual women do not have a reduction in the size of the VMN.
P: Pedophiles have a reduction in the size of the VMN and related structures.

mPOA and BNST:

T ∪ H ∪ W: Transgender women, homosexual men, and heterosexual women have oxytocin and vasopressin V1a receptor binding in the mPOA and BNST, which are associated with maintaining maternal care and female sexual behavior.
P: Pedophiles have abnormalities in the mPOA and BNST, which may cause inhibition of sexual maturity.

That took a while to write!

[BLueRibbon]

One thing I've noticed is that BLs tend to be neither masculine nor feminine, but very much in the middle.

I have some very stereotypically 'male' interests, and some very stereotypically 'female' interests.

I'm not effeminate, but I get along better with women than men.

I would say that BLs are a middle ground between 'gay' and 'straight' brain. We would be excellent subjects for sexual orientation research.

[Fragment]

One thing I've noticed is that BLs tend to be neither masculine nor feminine, but very much in the middle.

I have some very stereotypically 'male' interests, and some very stereotypically 'female' interests.

I'm not effeminate, but I get along better with women than men.

I would say that BLs are a middle ground between 'gay' and 'straight' brain. We would be excellent subjects for sexual orientation research.

I'd say that my observations bear this out. I would say that there's another group that fits this definition, though- gay "tops". Bottoms tend to be more effeminate, but tops are usually straddling that middle zone, much like BLs. That said, in my experience a lot of tops would actually qualify as non-exclusive BLs. Or at least they did before the stigma towards minor attraction grew too strong.

[WandersGlade]

Also, I just wanted to clarify something, why I mentioned the maternal behavior in rats. I was thinking that pedophilia might be "maternal" behavior in males, which might explain the asymmetry between male and female pedophiles (i.e. the physical contact between women and children is considered normal; consider that breastfeeding involves an erogenous zone, as does birth. Something on Newgon fitted with this https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Debate_Gui ... pedophilia).

Also consider Cantor's interpretation (beginning at around 1 minute 53 seconds):
https://fstube.net/w/oxkiH3fT2F3WPwDfsaDRcd
What triggers a nurturing response, triggers an erotic response in MAPs.

[parfait]

Pederast relationships feels like something very different from normal sexual attraction/lust, including "typical" paedo/hebe attractions. I recognise the fundamental difference between the mechanics of male and female socialising, and this particular sort of love I would say is only possible between guys, whereas girls have their own thing. It's like loving someone so so so much platonically that it somehow manifests sexually too, this is particularly true for the younger side.

I've categorised homosexuality in my headcanon into three possible groups. It used to be two and before that, one. When it was two, it was "true homosexuality" versus "pederast" relationships, and I assigned neuroticism for both cases. I realised that this is probably wrong, so my newest updated categories are listed below. Each category is considered a "driving factor", with particular "symptoms", but anyone can have any combination, proportions of all three. I'm aware of how pathologising it can be, but to conduct psychoanalysis, you'll find that raw truths are usually ugly, but that does not change anything about our surface, more abstracted layers of pure love, those are as real as ever.

1. "Raw" Homosexuality
==========
This is the relationship where there is no definitive "top" nor "bottom", these are usually man-man relationships where both are "switch" or "versatile". It is defined by a pronounced scatalogical interest (even more deviant anal play, and anal-oral contact). The major theory is that it's due to toxoplasma infection. This is the relationship where both appear very "gay", extremely more than the other two groups.
==========

2. Neurotic/Psychological Homosexuality
==========
This is the relationship where there is a definitive "top" and "bottom", a man-boy relationship. Tropes like BDSM are very prominent. This type of relationship is primarily driven by neurosis, for the bottom, compliance type neurosis; for the top; expansive type neurosis.

The top seeks out a "sissy boy" to demonstrate power over, in order to assert his own masculinity. The top simply has an insecurity complex and wants to affirm his superiority.

However, the bottom's insecurity complex is that oneself is too weak to be alone, but not weak enough to be seen as "worthy" for protection. Thus, the bottom seeks out a "real man" to degrade himself, this notably includes the "hurt then comfort" arc. I theorise that this is heavily correlated with gender dysphoria and MTF transgenderism, identifying as MTF/transitioning is merely the more extreme end of that spectrum, to want to adopt the stereotypical "weaker" female identity to further bolster the sense of inferiority/being dominated.

I will soon release my extended theories on neuroticism, but I will explain it partly here for context. In our case, neuroticism can be seen as the pathologised, radical form of the third and next type, platonic homosexuality. The bottom proactively degrades himself for the sake of appearing weak, thus "worthy" of more attention and care from tops. The top also proactively degrades the bottom - the more wounds there are, the more there is to heal; and the more you heal, the better the doctor you are. It turns out that Ms Karen Horney, the developer of her theory of neurosis, also noted this in her book Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization, describing "case studies of symbiotic relationships between arrogant-vindictive and self-effacing individuals, labeling such a relationship bordering on sadomasochism as a morbid dependency."

For neurosis in general, I define it as the natural adaption/coping/defense mechanism against societies/civilisations at unstable or meta-stable scales. This entails that society has way too much people, but we do not have the (bioengineering) technology to allow us to deal with it. There is at least one and at most two absolute stable state(s) - the "beginning" of the game is a given, but we don't know if the "end", winning the game, is possible. That would be a sci-fi future with massively enhanced brains, telepathic links, hive mind formation etc.. To get there, we start from the "natural" base state, living in societies equal or less than Dunbar's number or any equivalent concept. If we want to get to the end, we must push ourselves out of that stable valley - this time is what I define as an "artificial, inflated period". There are some numerous meta-stable points along the way, substeps of civilisation where we can put our leg down and rest a bit, if we wanted to. Examples I usually give are: the development of language, the first agricultural revolution, and the three industrial revolutions - any technological leap can be considered one, the larger the leap, the more stable. After such a leap, we usually tell ourselves, we can survive whilst doing a lot less work now! Be it language unlocking the possibility of inter-generational knowledge accumulation,the first electricity-powered factories or GPT LLMs. However, whenever we get even the slightest bit of energy boost from a leap, we instantly spend it on continuing uphill, to the next meta-stable point - we never stop to rest. This artificial inflated phase (yes, it does include economic inflation too - see the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) has great toils on our minds - what Mr Ted Kaczynski wrote in his magnum opus Industrial Society and Its Future was, I realised recently, describing those problems exactly. For example. he writes of "two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization"". This is clearly a description of neuroticism, and particularly, the compliance type. It is very unfortunate that Mr Kaczynski did not have enough interdisciplinary knowledge nor breadth of view to fit all of human history - it is my current goal to finish authoring a spiritual successor of his work, with those gaping flaws filled in. It will, of course, also advocate for M/YAP movements, youth liberation and the like. But back to how neuroticism plays into this type of homosexuality. The three types of neuroticism - detached, compliant and expansive are the three different methods of dealing with a society of an incomprehensible population size forced onto you. 1. Detached neurotics seek to self-isolate, to emulate pre-Dunbar societies. This is perhaps the most "natural" method of coping, but is still not realistic nor helpful in today's world where thousands and thousands of people walk across the streets outside every single day, and some interactions are necessary. In fact, this type of neurotics over-detach, which can be said as their hallmark. 2. Compliant type neurotics simply try to scale up alongside society, but clearly cannot catch up. They try to get to know every single person, whether they even meet irl or not, like they are a part of their village of a hundred people, this is obviously not doable. Most of modern alt-leftism (radical neoliberalism) can be aetiologically said to be powered by compliant neuroticism - there is an expectancy of unfulfillable amounts of empathy for copious amounts of people, and from this point it is clear how things like identity crisis politics (see my blog for a more detailed discussion on that), attitudes to immigrants and the like came to be. 3. Lastly, expansive, also known as aggressive neuroticism, is the coping method where the individual just tries to maintain a superior position of control over the massive population with no end in sight. Instead of the increase in need for supply of empathy in compliant neuroticism, expansive neuroticism is more characterised by the insecurity of losing control. Welp, looks like I did way more than a mere summary, but I still think it is relevant and important for foundational understanding.
==========

3. Platonic Homosexuality (AKA boylove, pederastry)
==========
This is the non-pathological baseline form of the above. The top is said to be driven by parental love for a child (urge to protect), and the bottom is likewise driven by what is a child's love for their parents. These are natural mechanisms of love that do not become "unpure" (type 2 neurotic homoseuxality), even though they can get way more strong than average, so strong that sexual attraction manifests too.

The taboo and sanctity of sexual intercourse and monogamy in modern day has become such hardwired social constructs, so much that that we've come to see them as proof of the highest level of love. Not just that, but with someone you love so much, you would expect the best to and from each other, which includes the heavenly pleasure of sex. Thus, there is sexual attraction.

Emotionally, it can be described as being so overwhelmed by love and care that you want to submit your body and soul to your partner, to satisfy them as much as possible - not just in the sexual way, but definitely including it. This are purely positive expressions, whereas in the above (type 2 neurotic homosexuality), the pathology is defined by artificially inducing negative expressions first, so that afterwards, bringing the bottom back to baseline is a larger positive change. This is what feels the most like "pure" and "natural" love, and therefore is also the most accepted type throughout history. You'll often even find staunchly heterosexual-identifying men being drawn into the prospects of such a relationship. This is nearly always a man-boy relationship with a significant age difference (not necessarily chronologically).
=========

[BLueRibbon]

Thank you for your unique and interesting analysis, parfait. WandersGlade and yourself should do some brainstorming and write an article for Mu on this topic.