[2][3][4] The book is a study of the youthful male face and form, from antiquity to the present day, from paintings and drawings to statuary and photographs.
[2] Writing in the book's opening pages, Greer says that, "Most people have accepted without question that women are treated as sex objects, viewed principally as body, with a primary duty to attract male attention.
The male human is beautiful when his cheeks are still smooth, his body hairless, his head full-maned, his eyes clear, his manner shy and his belly flat.
Their activities are inspired by horror and compassion for children who are forced by economic necessity to have sex that they are not ready for with older people they could not possibly desire.
"[26] Reviewing The Beautiful Boy in The Guardian, feminist writer Natasha Walter said that "Because Greer relies on such close criticism of the art, this is a book that is best savoured slowly... Greer has chosen to examine her subject thematically rather than chronologically, which means that you are constantly doubling back on yourself, bumping into Cupid again just after you have put away Boy George, which makes it tough trying to hold on to any sense of development across the centuries.
Constantly meandering in its approach, the book fails to deliver clearly what Greer has declared at the outset as her intent: 'to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys'".
"[15] In a review for The Sunday Times, James Hall says that, "At first flick, The Boy resembles a ravishing picture-book for the smart coffee table.
Alongside famous Old Master depictions of luscious boys (mythological, biblical and secular), we find recent "art" photographs that have been accused of pandering to paedophiles.
"[3] In Peter Conrad's review of The Beautiful Boy for The Observer, he said that "Greer's ogling defiantly disproves the orthodox feminist notion that 'the act of viewing is masculine'".
"[29] A writer for Publishers Weekly said of the book, "Short on argument but long on lush reproductions of languid young men, the collection is better viewed than read.
"[2] In The New Zealand Herald, Alison Jones wrote that, "Greer's affectionate enjoyment of boys will resonate with that of countless mothers (and fathers) who adore their sons' litheness and mourn its passing.
"[16] Writing in The New York Times, Janet Maslin said that the book provided "scholarly text that can't compete with the pictures.
When not beguiled by the next image of upwardly nubile flesh, sumptuously reproduced from the work of the world's great visual artists, you're more at risk of being left stupefied by the next authorial assertion.
However, she also stated that "In the meantime, the good news is that Greer’s theorising permits the production of a very handsome book full of beautifully reproduced paintings and sculptures from galleries around the world.
Western art history corroborates it: How many iterations of St. Sebastian, bound and stuck with arrows, decorate the public squares and churches of Europe?
She goes on to say that, "I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a sub-group of gay men", she wrote in London's Daily Telegraph.