Don't lump BL issues with GL

Throughout most of history, and many places of the world today, there exists an institution which allows sex between men, and preteen girls. That institution is (child) marriage.

This is why I say it's silly to think reading a piece which condemns Boy Love is also condemning sex between men and girls, in all cases. The Boy Love issue is a much more complicated one.

I don't know about 1964, but 30 years before that child marriage was going on within the good ol' USA.

Go here for some proof for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_bride

Obviously, the proof I give here shows that there was effort and attention given to banning child marriage in 1938. Hypocritically the film makers attracted attention to the film by exploiting the sexuality of young girls.

But when looking back in history, there is little sense in lumping pedophilic attraction to boys AND girls into one category, as if one is assuming both attractions were seen as "the same". A culture that allowed child marriage to little girls may have sought to burn Boy Lovers at the stake. Certainly this was the case for some cultures throughout history.

In the opposite, you can take modern day Afghanistan, which has laws and efforts to ban child marriage to little girls, but has no problem with the epidemic "Bacha Bazi" where it is perfectly acceptable for men to sodomize young boys. I guess the Feminazis don't care about that; instead using "female rights" as an excuse to bomb and kill.... protecting the rights of women and children by bombing women and children.