I'm not sure fees are the main motivation for sex offender psychologists, although government employment can be a way for underqualified shrinks to get inflated job titles and a comfortable and stable income. A lot of them are also feminists, and fighting boylovers is one of the fronts in the war for the supremacy of the radical feminist minority of women. One might initially think boylove has little to do with feminism, but at this point most of the restrictions on sex with minors, especially teenagers, are feminist-influenced (since the motivations for the original restriction on having sex with girls under 10 are now largely mooted, except to the extent there's still some damage to the parents if their daughter becomes less marriageable to not being a virgin).
Feminists essentially want to end sex between men and women in general, unless there's some way in which women can entirely hold the upper hand in the relationship, controlling everything. In practice, this would require taking away all of men's rights and enslaving them. They would have to be forbidden to work (or, if they could work, they would at least need to be forbidden from owning money or other property), for instance, so they could be made financially dependent on women and therefore would have no way of exerting an undue influence in a relationship. Feminists believe that men sexually coerce women by using their economic, social, political, etc. power; so the way to eliminate sexual coercion would be to take away all of men's power.
In the feminist narrative, minor women are particularly vulnerable to male seduction, so the attack on male-female sex could most effectively proceed by banning those relationships and putting feminists in charge of "rehabilitating" the offenders. But to avoid seeming discriminatory, it was necessary to also ban relationships between adult men and minor boys. Basically boylovers became collateral damage in a war that was never really about them, at least not directly.
But maybe we can see feminism's influence, in that boys retain some qualities that are stereotypically not "manly" (high-pitched voice, etc.), and women would perhaps benefit if they could have the monopoly on those qualities. On the other hand, feminists don't really have a problem with gays (including effeminate men) as long as they stick to adult men, since the ultimate goal, as mentioned, is to either destroy or control sex between women and men. So, the question is, does male desire for women further that goal of control (since those who have a desire can be controlled by limiting access to what they desire and making demands that have to be met before it can be satisfied), or work against it (since then men attempt to gain the upper hand in some way to get what they want)? Further analysis is definitely needed into the crossover between psychobabble and feminist ideology and strategy. Leucosticte (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)