What about the idea that attraction to children itself is a social construct and can be changed with the right attitude? I don't believe that, and I assume you don't either, but if so I'll note that you are assuming immutability in one place but downplaying it everywhere else.

I think, Ethan, that there is a big difference between a natural attraction base that has been around as long as humanity has, and a societal attitude that is relatively new, and still not universal across the planet despite the American and British governments & medias using their influence and economic power to enforce it over as much of the world as possible over the past 35 years. I know how much you agree with the moral stance behind this attitude, and thus hope it lasts forever, but products of nature shouldn't be compared with beliefs and moral stances that have hardly been around long enough to suggest they will stand the test of eternity.

Evo psych has a pretty good story to tell about women, sex, and false pretenses. In the EEA, a woman's #1 priority in sex is finding a man who will stay around and help bring resources for the child. Not proven, but pretty likely. You can solve slut-shaming but signs suggest the more fundamental situation will remain.

The situation you point out above is an issue that is inextricably entwined with the current economic system and various politics and accompanying social attitudes that support it (e.g., men's value being determined largely by their ability to find and keep a high-paying job over the long haul; i.e., they will be a "good provider" from an economic standpoint). These factors are not part of nature either, but socio-economic constructs that have heavy sexist connotations for both genders, let alone its inherent ageist connotations. This situation is even gradually changing within the context of the current system as more women are seeking economic independence, and may change further in the future if the time comes when youths will once again be allowed to seek gainful employment.

I agree that a lot of these things could be changed, but I think some would be going uphill. "Free love" for instance is a hard sell. We got lots of it around 1970, but people (especially women) pulled back because lots of them didn't like it.

I don't agree that many women "pulled away" from "free love" because they didn't like it. What we often call the "sexual revolution" got forestalled by the advent of the '80s, with its conservative takeover of the national mindset that went a long way towards empowering the Christian Right, the "family values" crowd in general, and a huge wave of political misandrists posing as "radical feminists." These changes are what made the continuation of "slut-shaming" and the idea that sexual activity is morally tainted activity in vogue despite the "sexual revolution" of the late '60s and '70s. A backlash against these "traditional" ways of thinking is already quite clear.

That said, I will point out that I have never supported "free love" in the sense that the hippies and "flower children" once promoted it. I have no moral qualms with it, but I never supported it as the "norm." I support the idea of independent choice for individuals over any enforced "norms" of any kind.

I think broader society -- even the liberal side -- will look at the social changes that the pro-contact position wants and see a list that's kind of tailored to allow adult-child sex. Seeing such a list tied to people identified as pedophiles will reduce its credibility. They'll take a broader view of the matter, and their list of desired liberalizations will not match yours.

That is based on the assumption - and the hope, I dare say - that such a position will always and forever be restricted to MAPs. That is not true even today. Despite the continuing (but possibly peaked) pedo-hysteria, the youth liberation movement has many advocates in favor of allowing sexual choice for youths that has nothing whatsoever to do with "supporting pedophilia," or anything to do with the MAP community whatsoever. So do many youth-friendly political tendencies, such as the various anarchist groups. The pro-choice position in a very general sense is not the narrow concern you make it out to be. It's a basic civil rights issue, no matter how much the media has attempted to frame it as a "protection" issue or "social concern" over the past three decades.

As things change, and youths acquire more rights, such attitudes will be increasingly questioned out of general principle regardless of how people may feel about it from the standpoint of their personal sensibilities or moralistic stance. Note that mainstream liberals did not support homosexuality during the 1950s, and some prominent liberals of the era - like MHP Frederick Wertham in his 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent - openly railed against what he perceived to be its depiction in the popular comic book medium. It didn't stand the test of time despite the fondest hopes and wishes of the great majority of people - liberals included - who lived during that era. Assuming the eternal immutability of any single attitude or belief, no matter how popular it may be in the native era of the believer(s) in question, is ignoring one of history's most prevalent rules.

My hunch remains that if you really freed children sexually and removed all their hang-ups and inhibitions, they would use the freedom mostly for prostitution.

I think what your hunch is really saying - albeit using prostitution as a highly extreme and narrow possibility - is that if granted general sexual freedom and having feelings of guilt over sexual expression being ameliorated, that many youths would engage in activities that you and others of like mind (i.e., moral traditionalists) do not approve of. Hence, you support (for the most part) the continuation of existing laws and moralizing tenets which do their best to force compliance amongst youths with those edicts, or at least heavily penalize those who do not comply (and of course, any adult who may not be "down" with helping that compliance). Prostitution is an easy type of sexual practice to bastardize and attack under our current social mores, so that is why it was your "extreme example of choice." This is really no different than the traditionalists who argue, from a purely moralizing standpoint, that the availability of vaccines which may prevent sexually transmitted virogens that can cause cervical cancer in girls is a "bad" thing, because its widespread use might encourage girls to be less hesitant to have sexual relations if they didn't have to fear the possibility of cancer; or, the arguments towards prohibiting the sale of safe contraceptives, because that might encourage more recreational sex.

People are entitled to their moral stances, and I would never suggest anyone stop personally adhering to them. The problem that the pro-choice stance has with traditionalists is their stance that a combination of law and judgmental moralizing attitudes should enforce their beliefs upon everyone. The denial of choice on any moralistic basis is the antitheses of freedom and liberation, and does not belong in any system that purports to be based on democratic precepts.