Given the inverse relationship between pronz-viewing in a culture and instances of rape and molestation the girls ought to be safer. But nevermind that catharsis has proof and monkey-see monkey-do doesn't.

"Be frank with your friends. Tell them that you’re understandably incredibly nervous about letting their son be around such young girls. Explain that if they want to come without him, you’d be delighted to see them."

And such "understandability" would surely be reciprocated if one of the daughters were to marry a man of colour. "Most blacks are harmless, but surely you can understand that we don't want to watch our valuables 24/7...."

"That if they all wanted to come as a family when your daughters were in their early twenties you’d be thrilled."

That's right. Because if he's a normal bloke who has seen the occasional bit of adult pronz, and desires adult women he's safe around your adult daughters. But if its KP, then magical sh*t happens.

"Explain that although you know the chances are incredibly slight that their son would actually do anything, you’re plagued by an irrational fear which you can’t get rid of. (I don’t see why you shouldn’t pretend that your fear is irrational even though it is, in most people’s books, perfectly rational.)"

Argumentum ad populum. If enough folks believe it it can't be irrational. That's why mobs are associated with wisdom rather than irrational violent impulses.

"Whenever I’ve argued with people who know about paedophiles that surely looking at images online is miles and miles away from wanting to do something about it – in rather the same way that sexual fantasies are one thing, and acting them out another matter completely – they have all said that they suspect that all men who enjoy looking at child porn would, deep down, like to carry out their fantasies in real life. Who knows who is right? But in this case, to find out just isn’t worth the risk."

So we reject causality between fantasy and act. We know its rubbish. And we ought to be ashamed to shun old family friends over such irrationality. But when its KP, everything we know about how the world works is untrue.

What we know is false about sexual desires we have is true for sexual desires they have. And its a d*mn shame that we aren't allowed to keep gays out of the workplace lest they grab our husband's *sses. But at least with the Pedos we can indulge this bigotry about other people without any pretense of civility.

Now it seems to me the issue isn't KP watching; or whether he's a Pedo; but that he did something criminal. If you no longer trust him around an internet connection not to be a risk to himself, you might extend that to other aspects of life. Would you trust that a person who stole a tip off of another diner's table was a good risk as a designated driver?

However its clear that what is operating here is irrational counterfactual prejudice. They're so caught up in discussing what sort of pronz, and then dismissing Hetero sexual fantasy itself, that they make it clear that its about whether you can trust someone who desires girls not to rape girls ( provided that they're a day under the magic age. )

If they were willing to discuss his rashness towards his own safety as a factor in the safety of others, they would have an argument.

As for me, I'm not afraid for my *ss when I know there are gays in the room.

Dante