They mean that the consent is not properly informed and a "yes" has no weight.

Okay, why does a child's informed consent have less weight than yours or mine? I can understand a guardian or Society stepping in and saying, "this isn't a good idea". I CAN'T understand the notion that an 8-year-old's desire to do something is somehow less true than an adult's... that strikes me as nonsensical.

I don't think there's a clear line between these.

I disagree. Manipulation is an action. Regret is a feeling.

But that's beside the point, because I said "exploitation", not "manipulation".

So, saying that situations of adult-child sex are generally less likely to be truly consensual and very likely to be exploitative because of factors such as the extreme imbalance of power and the inherently trusting nature of the child, and should therefore be criminalized, is actually a LOT different from saying that situations of adult-child sex should be criminalized because it's more likely for the child to feel regret over those encounters later on, whether that regret is intrinsic OR based on social factors. (And, like the majority of posters here, I tend to believe that it is based on social factors, which makes it an even weaker justification in my eyes.)

Just as an aside, in your scenario with the man and the teen girl, the man was being deceitful about his intentions and was probably setting her up for regret. That's an example of an exploitative relationship.

And it should be criminalized, but only because the high likelihood of exploitation was there! Exploitation is a real problem with humanity. Regret is not; it's a personal thing which can be experienced regardless of whether there was any wrongdoing on behalf of the partner.

The high likelihood of regret may be relevant depending on where you think that extra regret comes from, but in and of itself is a pretty lame reason to make something illegal.

That's how I see it.

If we set aside the law and focus on ethics, you might be right.

I feel that I am right.

What's legal and what's ethical are different. The law draws crude boundaries in broad strokes....

Which is why, even in the most harmless of situations, although it may not be abstractly unethical to engage, the man of good judgement will refrain, because it is still against the law which was drawn in broad strokes to protect the majority, and he knows that he is putting his girl in a situation which risks incredible amounts of grief, etc.....

As to your last paragraph about VP members: fair enough.

I am glad to hear that VP places such a strong focus on the happiness of its members, regardless of through which train of thought that happiness is found. Happiness really is in such short supply among pedos. It's not an easy life, especially for those who have difficulty accepting it let alone looking at it as a positive.

- Rainbow