Real Journalism (2025) is a collection of writings by Karl Andersson on (as the cover states) sexual politics, history, and culture. These articles appeared in Andersson’s self-published magazines, Destroyer and The Lover between 2006-2017. The book has a particular focus on man-boy love. Andersson includes enlightening accounts from boys who reflect on their sexual relationships with men. He reports on these interactions, and examines the social, economic, and cultural factors which influenced their development. There is much to enjoy and ponder in Real Journalism.

In this article, reviewer Felix Filus focuses on this question: Are the men in these relationships exploiting the boys? All opinions are those of the reviewer, who is not a committee member of Mu.

---

Real Journalism means embodying the journalists' creed ("Seek truth and report it") even when the truth may be socially inconvenient for the journalist. Karl Andersson is "Gay Man's Worst Friend" because, in the eyes of some gay men, promoting man-boy love as an inalienable part of gay culture undermines the goal of many people in the gay rights movement to disown this part of their culture. In Andersson's view, the effort to separate man-boy love from gay culture is dishonest. It is an attempt to "blandif[y]" (Andersson, 2025, p. 13) gay culture and make it more palatable by making it more heteronormative. In Real Journalism, Andersson provides evidence from ethnographic studies, interviews, and accounts by the boys themselves to support his claim that adolescent boys are not inherently harmed by sexual encounters with adult men and that adolescent boys often seek adult male partners. Andersson argues that some of these adolescents are gay, whereas for others, it is akin to a "phase" and they will become straight as they enter adulthood. Similarly, there are adult men who seek out sexual encounters with other adult men and boys, yet these men are essentially straight (See also: Tearoom Trade: A Study of Homosexual Encounters in Public Places by Laud Humphreys). Drawing on his ethnographic studies on shota fans in Japan, Andersson asserts this: "When you don't believe in an inborn sexuality that trumps everything else in your life—you must "come out" and "be who you are" (Foucault likened this to Christian confession)—you can be free to explore your desires and play around with them" (p. 16).

Throughout Real Journalism, Andersson discusses the injustices faced by men who have sexual relationships with boys and men who consume erotic content of boys. He argues that prosecuting men who ethically make, consume, or otherwise possess sexual art of boys or erotic films of boys (using Azov Films as an example) is wrong. Moreover, he says that what is ruled as child pornography is becoming increasingly arbitrary and absurd (p. 223). I agree that content like what was shot by Azov Films should not be prosecutable in the way child sexual abuse or more clearly exploitative forms of child pornography are. However, whether the content was softcore, hardcore, or just "nudist" boys in their natural environment, it is clear that the people who bought this material used it for sexual stimulation above any other purpose. Any aesthetic appreciation of the boy form is, at its core, a form of sexual interest. Denying that this material was made for sexual purposes, as Azov Films did, opens the door to child sexual exploitation.

Andersson cites a few different cases where erotic filmmakers recruited dozens to hundreds of adolescent boys and paid to film them. The filmmakers he names are Sebastian Bleisch (filmed in East Germany in the 1990s), Roman Hysek and Rolf Hammerschmidt (filmed in Czechia, 1990s), and Markus Roth (filmed in Romania for Azov Films, 2007-2011). The films' content ranged from boys playing on the beach nude, to posing in their underwear, to explicit sexual content. The boys were recruited, and going off Andersson's portrayal, they were not trafficked or otherwise exploited. They consented—and could consent—to being filmed in exchange for money. Some boys fully knew what the films' purpose was and others did not. Some felt embarrassed when they learned the true purpose, others liked being a star, and yet others felt indifferent to being filmed as long as they got their payment. Andersson explains that some boys even told the filmmakers that they enjoyed the acts and competed with each other to see who had the most-bought video.

To get a feel for what it was like to be in the sex industry in these regions, I recommend watching William E. Jones' film The Fall of Communism as Seen in Gay Pornography (1998) or Wiktor Grodecki's Not Angels But Angels (1994).

Based on how he discusses these cases, Andersson seems to suggest that the filmmakers he cites did not exploit the boys they filmed. Still, he does not make an explicit claim as to whether the boys were exploited. Rather, he describes accounts by the filmmakers, the boys, the boys' families, and journalists who interacted with all parties involved. The boys themselves mostly say their experience being filmed was positive. This is consistent with Andersson's assertion about man-boy sexual relationships across cultures. Andersson argues that journalists, lawmakers, law enforcement, and other groups push the narrative that sex between men and adolescent boys is inherently abusive. He goes on to say that this is a form of moral gatekeeping and veiled homophobia intended to sterilize the elements of gay culture which conflict with heteronormative values and practices (pp. 12-13).

Andersson argues that authorities in the contemporary West promote culturally encapsulated views on man-boy love. They apply contemporary lenses to historical and culturally-embedded sexual practices and sexual identities. One example Andersson cites is Kenneth Dover's work Greek Homosexuality (1978), the first modern scholarly work on Ancient Greek Pederasty. Andersson echoes Harald Patzer's (1982) critique of Dover's work: "By using the word homosexuality instead of pederasty (Knabenliebe), Dover mixes these phenomena in a way that results in ethnocentrism" (Andersson, 2025, p. 45). Moreover, Andersson argues that efforts from rich Western nations to stop sexual contact between men and boys in non-Western nations are a form of cultural imperialism. The example he cites is the Western multinational effort to "liberate" the boys involved in bacha bazi in Afghanistan (pp. 156-163). This "liberation", in reality, puts the boys and their families in a worse situation and alienates them from their culture. These boys do not want to be "saved" or changed. Some of these boys like the work or at least do not mind it. However,other bacha bazi dancers do not like it, yet are forced into this line of work. I say forced rather than "feel forced" or something similar, because the pressures of poverty and obedience to their family are quite strong. For many bacha bazi dancers, it would be insulting to say they made a choice. Still, this does not justify "saving" these boys for reasons grounded in Western conceptions of morality; nor is it accurate to evaluate their new life, them having been "saved", according to Western conceptions of happiness.

Now we move from Afghanistan back to Eastern Europe. This is where Sebastian Bleisch (East Germany, 1990s) and Markus Roth (Romania, Azov Films, 2007-2011) made films of boys intended for erotic consumption (I'm eschewing the loaded phrase 'CP' here). I'd like to examine these cases from multiple angles. I argue that the filmmakers' relationship with the boys was still exploitative, despite many of the boys' positive accounts.

First is the socioeconomic angle. These boys were usually lower class and unemployed. They were often in groups or "gangs" and were at high risk for committing crimes and violence. Andersson explains that their families were often okay with the boys being filmed because they were making money and it got them off the streets. Journalists who covered Bleisch's work in East Germany said that the families of the boys saw Bleisch as a kind of "social worker" in this regard (pp. 109, 115). Acting in erotic films made cash quickly and made a lot of it (though very little compared to how much Bleisch made from selling copies). For many boys, this was a more attractive proposal than getting a local job with much lower pay, or remaining unemployed due to a lack of jobs in their community.

Another angle one might take is supply and demand. Erotic content of adolescent boys is in high demand with low supply, so the price to the consumer is high, and the payment to the boys is high (compared to the wage they would make otherwise). I argue that this is still an inherently exploitative practice and supply and demand does not justify exploitation. Andersson does not explicitly make this argument in his work, but it is embedded in the idea of exchanging services for money. Capitalism as a whole is inherently exploitative, but elaboration on this point is beyond the scope of this review.

Another angle one might take is, "If Bleisch didn't film these boys, then because of supply and demand, someone else would step in and take his place". This argument implies that exploitation happens inherently, and therefore, it might as well be someone who treats the boys well. This is a false dilemma: No exploitation of these boys needs to happen at all. They may continue to face poverty and other challenges, but this is not a valid reason to recruit them for what may or may not be a "lesser" exploitation.

Finally, I'd like to examine the angle that the boys liked it. Andersson explains that many of the adolescent boys who were involved in porn, sex work, or sexual relationships with men do not feel as if they were exploited (pp. 108-109, 138, 144-155, 225-226). For the boys in Bleisch's films, many asserted that they thought of Bleisch as a close friend and confidant (p. 108). For other boys in some of the "gangs", being filmed by Bleisch became a symbol of pride and group belonging, and was a positive experience in this sense (p. 107). Others simply say that it was fun, and they'd do it even without the money (p. 110). For Roth's part, the more "naturist" Azov Films did not feature sex but rather had the boys posing, playing, or play-fighting nude or in their underwear (pp. 224-225). This content gives the impression that it is not exploitation, but rather paying the boys to document something they'd be doing anyway. In the absence of a longitudinal study of a large portion of these boys, it's difficult to argue either for or against the idea that it had a neutral to positive effect on their lives. There is, of course, the Rind et al. (1998) study, as well as many testimonies, some of which are compiled on NewgonWiki, which can serve as support for the affirmative. However, the most reliable evidence would come from a more complete set of testimonies from the boys. I have no way of knowing if the accounts Andersson cites are in any way representative of the group. There is also no data on the longitudinal impact on the boys of being involved in these films. There is no data on a control group, say, of boys of similar ages, locations, and socioeconomic backgrounds who did not participate in filming. The little data we have on these relationships is valuable and worth preserving in print. However, the accounts Andersson cites cannot be extrapolated to conclude that no harm is being done. This is, of course, not formal research, but journalism. At best, these accounts show that some boys do enjoy doing porn, having a male mentor, and/or having pocket money. The longitudinal effect on their life may vary.

Although Andersson does not discuss the psychological impact on the boys in detail, he does say that the boys were hurt when their supposed exploiters were separated from them (Andersson, 2025, pp. 112-113, 138, 161). I could expand on this line of thinking using Susan Clancy's message in her book The Trauma Myth (2009): If the boys are taught that they were abused—that what happened to them was horrible and the perpetrator is a terrible person—then they will reconstruct that experience into something shameful and traumatic in their mind. Clancy argues that if the sexual contact was not violent and did not induce fear in the child, then it was not traumatic for them. What might have been a positive or neutral, nuanced, culturally syntonic experience for them is spun into a trauma. A broader discussion of the impact of adult-minor sexual contact is outside the scope of this review, but in short, I think a sexual relationship between an adult and an adolescent can be mutually positive and fulfilling. However, just because a child's sexual experience does not meet Clancy's narrow classification of trauma does not mean it did not have negative effects. It is also incredibly hard for both parties to gauge the short and long-term psychological impact of such a relationship. Andersson gives plausible arguments about why consensual man-boy sexual relationships are good: 1) Some boys like it and will seek it out (pp. 108-110,138, 144-155, 225-226); 2) Sexual attraction makes the man a more caring,loving, and motivated mentor for the boys (pp. 132, 139); and 3) Attempts to disown or snuff out the practice are veiled homophobia, internalized heteronormativity, and/or cultural imperialism (pp. 12-13, 156-163). I think all of these arguments hold water, especially given the primary accounts from the boys. However, I am still not convinced that these feelings are as common in boys as he makes them out to be, nor that these practices are not exploitative, nor that the long-term impact of sex on a boy often has more negatives than positives. If I had to condense it into one thought, it would be this: So many boys can benefit from adult men giving them love, attention, and platonic affection... why introduce sex into the mix and risk messing everything up?

Andersson does, in fact, view cultural practices of man-boy love with nuance. He compares kabuki theater, in which beautiful boys had a choice to participate, and bacha bazi, participation in which was usually driven by poverty. He goes on to say, ..."bacha bazi reminds more of the sex trade with teenage boys in Prague in the 1990s, as it was described in Wiktor Grodecki's 1994 documentary Not Angels But Angels. Some of the Czech rent boys told tragic stories, whereas others had Imam's carefree attitude. Both societies were poor and chaotic after sudden social change—a hotbed for exploitation" (p. 160). In Real Journalism, what is unclear to me is whether Andersson wants to argue a point to his readers or to present primary sources and tacitly invite readers to come to their own conclusions. This could be a consequence of the format: These are all independent writings rather than a work with a formal thesis, like his ethnographic novel Impossibly Cute Boys (2024) is (the thesis of ICB not being a conclusion, but an appreciation of shota and the play between real and unreal). At some points in Real Journalism, Andersson makes rather clear statements: What is justice and what is injustice; what is exploitation and what is not; what is good for a boy and what is bad for him. What I find difficult to conclude from Andersson's writings is how he envisions a just society to function in regard to man-boy sexual relationships and the production and possession of erotic material of boys. I don't intend to back Andersson into a corner on these obviously complex, case-by-case issues, but this lack of a proposed path forward frustrates me. Additionally, Andersson's attraction to boys presents a conflict of interest, as it does for the authors of other prominent scholarly works on man-boy love (e.g., J. Z. Eglinton's Greek Love (1964); Parker Rossman's Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys (1976); Edward Brongersma's Loving Boys (1986-1990)). Sharing the culture one is researching can be an advantage for ethnography. However, being a boylover oneself hurts the credibility and confirmability of findings on man-boy love, especially in the eyes of non-boylovers. For this reason, maybe this journalism and research, like man-boy relationships themselves, will remain underground.

I’m a first-time reader of both Destroyer and The Lover, so Real Journalism was totally new to me. It was a pleasure to read!

---

Have something to add? Please take part in our forum thread concerning this article.

References, plus further reading and watching

Andersson, Karl. (2011) Gay man's worst friend. EntartesLeben.

Andersson, Karl. (2024). Impossibly cute boys. Breakout.

Andersson, Karl. (2025). Real Journalism. Breakout.

Brongersma, Edward. (1986-1990). Loving boys. Global Academic.

Dover, Kenneth. (1978). Greek homosexuality. Harvard University Press.

Eglinton, J. Z. (1964). Greek love. Oliver Layton Press.

Grodecki, Wiktor. (1994). Andělé nejsou andělé [Not angels but angels]. [Film]

Grodecki, Wiktor. (1995). Tělo bez duše [Body without soul]. [Film]

Grodecki, Wiktor. (1997). Mandragora [Mandrake]. [Film]

Humphreys, Laud. (1970). Tearoom trade: A study of homosexual encounters in public places. Duckworth.

Jones, William E. (1998). The fall of communism as seen in gay pornography. [Film]

Patzer, Harald. (1982). Die griechische Knabenliebe. FranzSteiner.

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (1), 22–53.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.22

Rossman, Parker. (1976). Sexual experience between men and boys. Association Press.