Re: Irony and Understanding

When you have proof for your latter assertions then I might believe this but until then you are just fishing for evidence like most here - what suits you will accept and what doesn't you will reject. There is some evidence for some children to be more sexual than others (for reasons perhaps unknown) and that a significant portion of adults do have an attraction to children but that doesn't mean a majority.

Actually it's trivial to prove that children are born with genitalia, including the nervous terminations that produce pleasure upon being played with; as well as the brain hormones responsible for sexual attraction and desire.

That doesn't completely refute your argument, but it certainly removes it from biology and physiology. It means that your argument is necessarily sociological rather than biological. In that case, the investigation has to be about whether an asexual childhood is an anthropological constant or not. And it is not, although it is in the West, starting by the hangover from Christianity's obsession with premarital virginity; strengthened by Progressives' obsession with childhood and their aims to socialize children into Progressivism; legitimated by Psychiatry's pseudo-aetiologies invoking childhood; and recently fueled more by Feminism's opposition to male sexuality. Perfect storm.