The strongly emotional need to believe that children are more or less asexual is a very important component of the cultural paradigm of the Innocent Child.

I can't answer for some vast impersonal "Society", but I don't believe children are asexual. I just believe the vast majority of them are not interested in genital-manipulation sex with an adult for purposes of sexual pleasure.

And this is, of course, a belief that does not correlate with evidence. This is especially the case because children are currently prohibited from almost any form of sexual expression, and particularly with adults. Considering their behavior under an oppressive regime that forces them to act a certain way or else to be inherently natural is yet another case of willful intellectual dishonesty.

he won't be convinced because he doesn't want to be convinced. He isn't "open" to data that does not support the socio-cultural party line.

My divergences from this putative party line are large, though you can lump us all together if you apply enough force.

Large in some ways, perhaps, but not very loyal in others. In fact, very loyal when it comes to the matter of freedom of choice, popular societal conception of childhood potential and capabilities, the basic "goodness" of the status quo as is, and to the platform of geronto-dominance.

I offer this instead: The pro-contact position posits a significant transformation of our present society.

Only to the basic extent of derailing geronto-centric dominance in a similar manner to how the women's movement largely derailed mainstream support for patriarchal dominance. That, along with bolstering democratic principles that does not tolerate any form of censorship. That will necessitate changes in the family unit and within our educational institutions, and we believe this is natural social evolution that will ultimately be for the best of everyone in society.

This transformation must maintain all of our progress on individual autonomy and well-being (as opposed to when girls were married off at age 13, for instance). It assumes regret at sexual activity that is not understood at the time will vanish without other ill effects once society is tweaked the right way.

It presumes that this "regret" issue you tout so strongly will not occur to the point that it's absolutely devastating to any girl (or boy) who may experience it, certainly not to the point where it obstructs their ability to function later in life. It further presumes that a more open and less oppressive society will no longer have a political or cultural motive to push sociogenic-oriented "regret" on people for their various choices. It also presumes that regrets and mistakes can be learning experiences that can actually enhance a person's ability to function and avoid making similar mistakes later in life, rather than result in crippling emotional dysfunction. We simply do not believe that the concern over possible regrets in any way justifies an oppressive prohibition of choice that is based upon assumptions or "just in case..." scenarios, and punishing innocent people of all ages for something that hasn't even actually happened, but simply "might" someday.

And it assumes that in this new world large numbers of children will be actively interested in sexual activity with adults.

No, it presumes these things only: Children and young adolescents will have freedom of choice. That even if only a few had that desire, their rights and choices would be respected just as all minority choices and preferences are, and that a tyranny of the majority would be seen as every bit as undesirable as a tyranny of the few.

But we know that gerontophilia is a real phenomenon in the spectrum of human attraction, albeit heavily understudied for obvious reasons; it's a door that researchers may be even less inclined to open than the one leading to objective study of the dynamics of adult attraction to underage youth. But the large number of sample subjects that reported positive liaisons with adults while in legal childhood when consent was involved in various studies, including the Rind Report, strongly suggests that gerontophilic attraction may possibly be implicit in a significant minority of the youth population. I've certainly met, associated with, and even dated a good number of younger women of legal age with gerontophiliac preferences, and they were quite clear in our many discussions that these preferences didn't suddenly manifest only when the clock struck midnight on their 18th birthday.

Further, you are conveniently assuming that a prohibitive status quo like the current regime is an adequate means of observing how children and young adolescents would conduct themselves with adults if they actually had freedom of choice, the right to suffrage, the right to seek out whatever information they wanted to have without obstruction, etc. I think it's clear you do not want to support a system where young people had the right to engage in any activity that you do not approve of from a moralistic standpoint. I think it's also clear that you presume that sexual variation and diversity in people under 18 is rare, and that the vast majority would be repulsed by the idea of intimacy with an adult. Or, more accurately, you need to believe this to justify support of this type of prohibition in your eyes.

That is a party line based on lots of questionable assumptions. Any individual pro-contact person may drop away from the community if they look at those questions honestly and decide it doesn't add up.

It only doesn't "add up" when you look at the available data and personal experiences through emotional lenses, rather than rational and objective eyes. We've all had over three decades to read, consider, mentally digest, and analyze all of the available data, as well as what can be gleaned from numerous personal experiences and observations, and to ask ourselves all of the relevant questions over and over again ad nauseum. And we've decided, plain and simple, that the emotional beliefs that demand continued support for the prohibitions are what do not add up.

But the community will continue. It is united around the conclusion, not the evidence for the conclusion. It is united around a desire, at least in theory, to be the adults who would get to be the sexual partners of these children.

It is united around objective studies that you choose to ignore or downplay, as well as a set of emotionally and moralistically driven beliefs and assumptions that make no logical sense, and ultimately, do not justify across the board prohibition and all of the attendant oppressive laws, witch hunting, censorship, mass surveillance, moral panics, and vicious attacks on the basic civil liberties of everyone in society that results from it. Not to mention the surfeit of real abuse of all kinds that underage kids have to suffer from as a result of putting them under the full control of adults, and the many more serious forms of dangers and threats whose importance is downplayed due to the disproportionate amount of attention and resources that is provided on suppressing their sexual expression and keeping them in their proper "place" within the prevailing gerontocracy.