In both the professional and popular literature most of the words or phrases used to "name " our topic are either too narrow, ambiguous from variations in usage, or overly laden with emotional connotation. The answer, I think, is shorthand, so I'm going to coin "intergen" as the referent that I'll use. Other terms from the literature, then, can be used with more precision, or not used at all, as needed.

"Intergenerational Intimacy" is a term I seem to have introduced to the professional literature in two papers presented at conferences in 1987 (including the Summer symposium in Jemez Springs, New Mexico), and in my article in the Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20 Nos.1/2, 1990. When that special issue of the Journal was issued in book form, the term became the title, Male Intergenerational Intimacy (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). Whether or not I was the first to use it, the term probably comes the closest to performing the dual purpose of being positive and of describing adequately the parameters of the issue. Still, the word "intimacy" is somewhat ambiguous, and the term itself is a bit long (eleven syllables!) to be a "nickname" that is used over and over in discussions. Also, there are even variations of this term that avoid the ambiguity of "intimacy" by substitution, such as "intergenerational interaction", or "intergenerational relationship".

"Pedophilia" is a narrow medical term, also used (and often misused) by the child-abuse-industry (CAI) and the general public with decidedly negative connotations. "Pederasty" is probably a more accurate reference, though it is often assumed to refer only to sexual interactions, and that would be the wrong focus here.

"Boylove" would have been my choice if we had to use an existing word. Some will have an automatic negative reaction, perhaps in part due to a similar-sounding combination in the full name of the organization known as NAMBLA -- the North American Man/Boy Love Assocation -- which gets a lot of negative press. On the other hand, it is difficult to fault the word "Love", or the complex of emotions it describes, when the word is used properly. This term has the added benefit of a subtle double-meaning: Love for boys, and love that boys themselves express towards others.

CAI will be used when needed as an abbreviation for The Child-Abuse-Industry, a massive force in American society today made up of social workers, law enforcement, psychologists, researchers and pseudo-researchers, prosecutors and legislators. Their primary activity is guaranteeing their own jobs and building their reputations. They do this by maintaining thresholds of fear through skillful manipulation of the media, by promoting questionable research that reaches the conclusions they want, and by pushing countless new laws that no legislator has the backbone to vote against no matter how ill-advised or pointless the laws might be.

Not all advocates for children or adolescents are part of the Child-Abuse-Industry and make no mistake -- abuse, molestation, rape and other crimes are committed against children and must be punished and prevented when possible. There are lots of quiet, hard-working people in communities and service organizations, in schools and hospitals and detention facilities who know and respect real kids and do their best to give them a chance. They are not nearly as visible and noisy, and they get small results that actually make a difference. Those who are stuck in the CAI are only visible and noisy, and their results are usually "more of the same".

For a sampling of CAI publications, see Burgess, 1985; Burgess and Clark, 1984; Densen-Gerber, 1980; Finkelhor, 1979; Reisman and Eichel, 1990; and Ritter, 1988.

For detailed critiques of the CAI, see Best, 1990; Eberle and Eberle, 1986; Goodyear-Smith, 1993; Jenkins, 1998; Levine, 2002; Rabinowitz, 2003; and my own paper (Jones, 1990).

• I will not engage in Fox-News-style shouting matches and Jerry Springer-type King-of-the-Hill games in which the last one yelling is the winner. Discussions will proceed with people making points without interruption -- and hopefully succinctly out of consideration for all points to be given a chance -- or I will walk, and those who remain can waste their time any way they like.

• I won't require, but I sincerely encourage all to maintain a cordial and respectful attitude in all discussions. As important as this subject is, it is not the end of the world, no matter how it turns out, and positive attitudes will help us towards our goal of understanding the issues.

• Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Such attacks often are used in uncivilized discussions to divert attention away from a person's ideas and points by focusing instead on his or her private life, group affiliations or personal friendships, real or imagined "hidden agenda" and the like. For me, like the shouting and rudeness mentioned above, this tactic will be a show-stopper.

• The subject at issue is Intergenerational Relationships, or "Intergen" for short (see above for the rationale for using this term). It must be agreed that the term is not merely a euphemism for sexual contact between men and boys, and, in fact, intergenerational relationships can and do exist when there is no sexual contact at all. Said differently, the spectre of sexual contact that is unacceptable in our society must not prevent us from considering the remaining full range of possible benefits of close relationships between males who are significantly different in age, where one of them is still pre-adult.

• The basis of the discussions will be the findings of empirical studies, the published writings of reputable historians and other scholars, the first-hand accounts of the participants, and the opinions of the participants, in that order with the research being the most important, opinions the least.

• We will agree to disagree on some issues. There will be no need to press for consensus as a goal of the discussion. The basic goal will be to hear the points that participants want to make, and to challenge opinions with equivalent opinions, and scholarly evidence with equivalent scholarly evidence.

• Religious arguments and moral positions will not be allowed the same credibility as academic research. Research findings, unless challenged on their own merits, will be regarded as the closest we can get to truth. The people under discussion -- men and boys in Western society -- can, do, and should participate in the full range of religious practices, including no religion at all. This makes it impossible to conceive that any particular position based in religious faith or teaching could apply to everyone. Religious positions are often not subject to logic and usually cannot be tested and so will be given second- or third-tier consideration.

• Anachronism will not be allowed. "Revisionist history" is an insidious, manipulative evil that benefits only those who selfishly use it to mask their own ignorance. Evidence from other cultures or other periods of history must not be evaluated by all the same criteria that are used to evaluate human behavior today, in Western culture. What is known or reported to have happened in the past, or in non-Western cultures must be considered in its context and can only be critically evaluated on that basis.

• By the same token, we will not assume that if people in non-Western cultures and/or at different times in history engaged in certain behavior, that behavior should be permitted today in Western culture. (My position, for what it's worth, is that explicit sexual activity between adults and young people below whatever age of consent is operative is simply not an acceptable option today in America, for example, and that advocating such activity while trying to learn something from the cross-cultural, empirical and historical research on the subject is counterproductive.)

• Nothing verifiable will be excluded from a discussion. Knowing is better than not knowing. If it happened, then it's part of the picture and must be considered.

• Here's the summary:
  • No shouting, no interrupting
  • Cordiality and respect will facilitate the discussion
  • No ad hominem attacks
  • The issue ("Intergen") comprises much more than just sexual behavior, and can exist without any sexual contact
  • Order of importance: empirical research, other published writings by reputable scholars, first-hand accounts, opinions
  • Agreement on all issues is not the goal
  • Research findings will take precedence over religious or moral arguments
  • Behavior reported in other cultures and at other times in history cannot be evaluated by our current standards or mores
  • Just because the ancient Greeks (reportedly) did it, doesn't mean it's appropriate behavior for us now
  • Nothing verifiable will be excluded

• All right, let's talk

• (Note that this list is still under construction, and may be modified over time.)