How on earth do you expect the authorities to provide such evidence and not to possibly make it more attractive to those who might want to view this stuff?

And they can't even show it to a few known to be objective journalists who are not MAAs? Because they might get titillated by the pics also? How do we know for a fact that none of the cops who view that stuff aren't aroused by it? But that's not possible, because the cops say it isn't correct? How just can we consider any type of government operation if it's not conducted with any degree of transparency or commitment to veracity to the public? After all, it's not like the government or the police have ever lied before, right?

The porn deniers really are a special case!

Because we ask for proof about some very outrageous claims, that have resulted in a destructive hysteria that has resulted in the erosion of numerous civil rights, as well as the demonization of an entire minority group? I'm sorry, but too much is at stake to give the police a complete free pass on something they have a vested interest in lying about.

You will probably be one of those who refuses to see the asteroid until it finally impacts saying "well it may only be half the distance I last looked but that happens every time I look."

The difference is, it would not be illegal for the average citizen or even any journalists to look into a telescope to actually see for ourselves if such an asteroid is actually there following claims by the government that it is. If you wanted to justify policies that require mass evacuations, or something equally drastic, on the basis of the asteroid claim, wouldn't you want proof before going along with all of that, especially when such a wild claim is made? And especially if the government agency who made that claim didn't exactly have a stellar rep for honesty when it came to making reports that sacrificed honesty and the the rights and freedom of countless innocent people for its own benefit? Yet you put total faith in what those cops say because of the specific emotional buttons these particular claims happen to 'push' with you. Please think about that...and tell those cops to give us some proof, because knowledge is always superior to policies supported on the basis of belief.

And this is probably why we see so much sex-play rather than actual sex in pre-pubertal relationships even when it does occur. The difference is based on physiological, psychological and probably emotional differences. I can certainly remember when I first became sexually aware and it was probably at around age ten so anything of a sexual nature prior to that would have had a different meaning for me.

Then you wouldn't have seeked out sexual experimentation with anyone prior to age ten, and it would have been wrong for anyone--either a peer or an adult--to attempt to foist it upon you. None of us here would disagree with you on that. The disagreements would come with you using your individual situation prior to that age to making an assessment of how "most" other kids at that age must have felt. I was sexually aware prior to ten, and did seek out experimentation here and there with willing peers, and though all my peers were interested in it, enough of them were that I highly doubt the numbers were incredibly small, nor pervasive only in the city I happened to grow up in, during the decade in which I grew up. I never had the slightest interest at any point in my life with experimenting with fellow males, but I know this isn't true for all at that age, and I do not presume that if it wasn't true for me, then it could only be true for, at best, "a few" others. Nor do I consider that only the desires of whatever the majority may be are valid, or that the desires of several million guys are more valid than those possessed by a single individual.

Also, where are you getting this idea that most pedophiles are interested in full intercourse with pre-pubescents? I hope it isn't because Sarah Goode assumed that, and you consider her the greatest authority out there on the MAA community.

It might be in your country but this will not be the case in other countries.

Yet no country in the First World is as religiously zealous as the U.S., yet every country in the world cooperates with and develops policies in accordance with the U.S. due to their fear of its superior economic power. Make no mistake, the U.S. can and will hurt other countries from an economic standpoint if they do not go along with it on many things. Case in point, both Japan and the Netherlands were much more open-minded about research regarding intergenerational romance, and much more lax with their AoC laws, until the U.S. put extreme pressure--read: bullying--on them to change those policies during the 1990s. Non-abusive CP produced professionally was even legal in those nations until the U.S. "put its foot down" on that. Keep in mind too that the U.S. pretty much controls the U.N., and the latter has no control over what it does whatsoever.

I think you need to take my hand again .... eyes closed now?

Yet almost everything else conceivable in the U.S. requires the burden of proof according to American jurisprudence. You can see why making even a single exception sets a never nasty precedence.

What we simpletons like to say - no paedophiles, no abuse - except we do know that most of the abuse is never carried out by paedophiles. Without the attraction there might be less though.

Less intergenerational sexual interactions, you mean. You only say less "abuse" because you consider a connection between pedophilia and sexual abuse, however limited you may say you consider it.

Did you also just admit by slight implication that you believe the world would be a better place without pedophilia? Please have the courage to answer this question honestly, and in front of us.

The pleasure is the problem because it makes it easier to abuse someone, particularly when the younger person begins to feel part of a relationship rather than seeing themselves acted on by another.

But it can't possibly be a real relationship, no matter how much the child enjoys it or considers it as such, because the consensus ideology is that it cannot be. You will likely say, "Well, that might not always be the case, but it's probably the case most of the time..." Mmmmhmmm.

Children mature at different rates and two 8-year-olds might experience sexual feelings entirely differently, how is that semantics? Many here seem to have a one-size fits all philosophy towards children and their capabilities.

With all due respect, lee, but is it really us who is promoting the "one-size fits all" philosophy when it comes to all children being the same in this regard, or is it actually you and others of your ideological ilk who are doing so? And saying, "Well, a few can handle it maybe, but most surely can't" is actually using a slightly watered down version of the above in the hope of sounding more "open-minded" and less absolutist, but that only works if you ascribe to the belief that majority feelings should always take precedence over how a minority of individuals may feel.

Lastly, it might be that this attraction is faulty as I think or it may have some evolutionary benefit or any other origin and purpose so would you treat them all the same - this is good let's have more of this whatever it is?

Is it justified to say, "Let's have less of this?" if it's proven to have a natural evolutionary benefit simply because enough people are offended by the practice of it during any given era? I certainly don't ask for more of it, but only to accept and respect as much of it as nature naturally creates--the same with all other forms of romantic attraction.