Let's take it from the top

Okay, let me try to make a response to the post of yours that started that whole sordid thread of yours that led to this argument in the first place. THe post of yours that started it all was in regards to your stated reasons why you think we should simplify the definition of the word "pedophile" to one that is defined as a strict sexual desire for minors only, and your contention that the term "GLer" should be dropped from our lexicon because no one will believe what it stands for.

First off, please know that I spend a lot of time as an activist, including on the field work at times. I have been one for a long time, and I have studied previous movements for emancipation and I have also studied in depth the methods of various political parties during campaigns. Am I saying this to brag or to come off as a know-it-all? No, this is nothing to brag about because there are at least thousands out there just like me, and I am not trying to toot my own horn, as the saying goes. I am simply saying it to make it clear that when it comes to this particular subject you raised, I know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm not always right, of course, as I am human and thus far from infallible, but I can safely say that my opinions on this matter can be considered a series of educated guesses.

I do not agree that large numbers of teliophiles will not believe us if we tell them that there is much more to the attraction base of a pedophile, hebephile, and nepiophile than a mere sexual desire. There is no need whatsoever for us to adopt a bastardized definition of the term "pedophile" and treat it as legitimate despite the fact that it's been re-written by some of our worst enemies simply because it will come off as more palatable and believable to the average Non we will talk to because of what they hear about us in the media. Such is not a good idea for a few reasons:

1) It's dishonest. Lying for political gain can really come back to bite you on the ass, and it might convince people that the community you represent may have a hidden agenda.

2) We are never going to conquer the prejudices aimed at MAAs until we start confronting them and opposing them. The worst thing to do is to cater to these prejudices rather than tearing them apart. If Susan Clancy can show the degree of courage when writing the book The Trauma Myth that she has, then we know we can do no less ourselves.

3)We cannot assume that every single Non we will ever meet are as close-minded and totally pig-headed as the antis. Some of the more open-minded of them can be swayed to accept us if they like us enough personally. All of my friends in real life know that I am a hebephile, and because I always try hard to live as honorably as possible (I am well aware that if I screw up in some fashion it's possible that society could cast apsersions on my entire community as a result, and all because of me). I told you this below, but as angry as you were then, I am not sure you saw it, so I will repeat it here.

At the most recent B4U-Act workshop I met a group of particularly open-minded mental health professionals (MHPs). Because I and the other MAAs there made sure to be polite and to extend our trust to them in a relaxed professional setting they showed a great degree of willingness to listen to us. Our conversations were long and productive. I believe we successfully established our basic humanity to these MHPs and in return they listened. And it became clear in that workshop, just as it was evident with my college professor back in 1998 when I asked his permission if I could "come out" officially during his Censorship class where I would be making a presentation on Nabakov's Lolita. His reaction was one of utter fascination, not repulsiveness in the least, and he was more than happy to let me "come out." My fellow students in the class listened to me respectfully, there were no outbursts, and even those who disagreed with what I said asked me reasonable questions that were respectful. My professor was on cloud nine due to his fascination with the subject and with what I revealed to him and the class. The whole situation, which occurred at what was perhaps the peak of the hysteria, went great. And it made me realize that not every Non was destined to be an anti.

But I got ahead of myself. At the B4U-Act workshop, it was quite clear that it is possible for people from our community to have respectful discourse with Nons, even those in highly professional and influential positions, and the main way to get respect is to give respect, and that means honesty (and no, I am not invoking either that much feared alleged GLer whose lies took down VoA temporarily, nor the right-wing BLer who posts on BC). One of the psychologists at the workshop, an older woman, exchanged e-mail addys with me and she made it clear that she was far more fascinated than repulsed by my hebephiliac inclinations when she told me in the middle of the conference that she would love to hear what I thought a 14 year old girl (hypothetically, of course) had to offer me in a relationship. I told her that if we weren't obliged to keep to a strict schedule for the conference, I could spend as long as nine hours telling her about all the wonderful things a cool 14 year old girl would have to offer a guy my age, and vice versa.

Hence, based on these experiences, I think it's fully possible--MORE than possible, in fact--to be honest about our feelings and the extent of our attraction base and many in the general public who are of a more open-minded type will be willing to have lunch with us and not only listen to us, but full believe us.

Ergo, I do not think it's wise for us to drop the "GLer" moniker, as I think it can benefit us rather than cause Nons to react with disbelief. If we give them a definition of pedophilia that caters to the stereotype in the hope that they will find this easier to believe, nothing good would come out of that because it's not only dishonest but it appears to confirm some of society's worst fears about us. And as I learned in the two situations I mentioned above, it is VERY possible to get Nons to listen to us if we deliver an honest assessment of the entire breadth of our attraction base. There is nothing inherently incredulous about our claims to having a multi-faceted attraction base, and by emphasizing and discussing all of these aspects in detail with Nons in public they begin to see us as the complex human beings that we are. I am simply saying that it's very possible.