I'm not implying that Sandfort deliberately fudged anything. But he never claimed that he was taking a random sample of men involved with boys. He was asking for volunteers, and I assert that the vast majority of men would not have volunteered to show up if they were involved with boys who they thought might express serious reservations about it.

If men involved with boys who had serious reservations about any romantic/sexual aspects of the relationship, then it would not have truly been a genuine romantic relationship in the first place. It would have been an "arrangement" of some sort, with each partner sacrificing something to acquire what they wanted from the other. Sandfort was clearly asking for serious romantic relationships, with all the ups and downs of relationships between people of comparable age.

And the thing is, none of those men had any way of controlling what the boys would say once Sandfort interviewed them. If they weren't confident in the genuine nature of the relationship, then they wouldn't have been good subjects for Sandfort's study in the first place.

It was at least a very important friendship to them, but whether they viewed it as romantic is a serious question. Whether they were actively interested in the sex is yet another open question. I think a couple said so, out of this self-selected sample.

This is, once again, an assumption of yours based on adherence to the common narrative that minors, in almost all cases, will only have a sexual relationship with an adult whom they want to placate and keep around as friends. This supposed "requirement" makes no logical sense for many reasons besides this culturally biased assumption of yours, among which are: 1) There are plenty of adult men that boys could find to be a platonic mentor or friend if one of these things were all they wanted; 2) Contrary to that popular narrative you adhere to, it's extraordinary difficult for adults to get minors to do anything the latter truly does not want to do if they lack direct power and authority over them, and even then it's an uphill battle in many cases.

They did not, and certainly would not, support measures of prohibition.

You're changing the subject. But how many of them would today support measures of prohibition is not clear at all.

I think this subject is relevant. How many of those boys would support measures of prohibition today is likely connected to how much that lack of freedom would have cost them during the 1980s. They know something firsthand from direct experience, something that those of your ideological ilk refuse to accept.