The Quran does describe youthful attendants in Paradise, but it does not describe them as sexual partners. The pederasty objection depends on turning a description of age, beauty, and service into a sexual role that the texts themselves never assign.
Why the objection can seem forceful
The concern is not irrational. The Quran speaks of "immortal youths" or "immortal boys" moving among the people of Paradise, and compares their beauty to scattered pearls. These descriptions occur in a setting that also includes spouses and sensual pleasures. A modern reader may therefore ask why an all-holy God would present perpetually youthful males as part of the reward, especially if the language suggests that their youth and beauty are meant to be admired.
That reading becomes stronger if one imports the assumptions of pederastic cultures, where adult males sexually used adolescent boys. On that model, "beautiful eternal boys" could sound like a veiled promise of access to them. The objection should be stated plainly: the imagery may appear to sexualize minors, even if the Quran does not use explicit sexual language.
What the verses actually say
The relevant passages identify these figures by their activity: they circulate among the people of Paradise in order to serve them. They are compared to pearls because of purity, beauty, and brightness, not because the Quran describes sexual contact with them.
Immortal youths will circulate among them, to serve them, like scattered pearls.
Quran 52:24
Immortal youths will circulate among them. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls.
Quran 76:19
There will circulate among them immortal youths.
Quran 56:17
The Arabic terms indicate attendants or young servants, while mukhalladun conveys continued youthfulness or an unchanging condition. Classical commentators such as al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir explain the verses as describing servants of Paradise, not male objects of sexual use. The text gives them a household and service function. It gives the houris a different description and role. Mentioning both does not merge them into one category.
Purity cannot be supplied by innuendo
Islamic revelation does not treat every form of beauty, companionship, or pleasure as sexual. The Quran also describes garments, gardens, food, drink, thrones, and servants in Paradise. A beautiful attendant is not thereby a sexual partner. In this life, attraction does not erase another person's status or make exploitation lawful; in Paradise, the Quran repeatedly describes a realm cleansed of harm, sin, and corrupt desire. It does not present forbidden sexual relations as rewards.
Thus the passages may reasonably raise a question for readers shaped by modern associations with the word "boys." They do not, however, establish pederasty. They establish the presence of eternally youthful attendants, whose beauty signifies the perfection of Paradise and whose stated function is service. The sexual interpretation is an imposed inference, not what the Quran says.