Whatever the merits of normalizing adult-child sexual activity (a subject you know we disagree on), I think what you are offering is akin to a graduate thesis in a subject where most people still haven't taken the high school course.

Which is precisely why these points need to be spoken of as much as possible, to encourage individuals both outside and within the community to take those proverbial high school courses so they can obtain their proverbial graduate degree.

My speculation is that even most ordinary, open-minded folks think of pro-contact MAPs as evil and/or wackos. They/you hold a belief that to them is self-evidently false and self-serving. If we take the young men's statements literally, they don't think any of you even abstain. I know it's more complicated and that many of you have views that are guided by high moral principles; others at least abstain. But ordinary folks don't know that.

Which is a problem we are working to change. Those beliefs you mention above are usually far less rampant in individuals who have a person in their lives whom they love and respect and know to be a MAP, regardless of the latter's views on the contact issue. Since the great majority of MAPs are still in the toybox, that explains why so many Nons still hold those beliefs. It's very easy to think bad things about a bunch of faceless individuals whom you can readily presume no one you love and admire could possibly be one of. This problem is made worse by the fact that the great majority of Nons are just beginning to be allowed access to accurate information about MAPs in general, and have spent their entire lives only hearing one side of the issue, which imbeds the impression in their minds that only one side exists.

Realizing that pedophiles exist who don't seek to change laws is a revelation to them. Perhaps they find it more plausible that we at least abstain if we don't seek to change laws (though I realize there's no necessary relationship). A great many of the less open-minded think that Virtuous Pedophiles members are terrible people who abuse kids anyway, and our discussing ideas online and suggesting we don't need to hate ourselves is tantamount to condoning abuse.

Pretending to hate ourselves and/or our feelings, or worse, actually hating ourselves and/or our feelings to appease popular sentiment is a disingenuous way to go about things, and it's against many of our principles to take that route. Pretending to advocate a stance you do not sincerely believe to be viable, necessary, or humane would not be pragmatic, but a form of cowardice and hypocrisy. Let's not forget that individuals like our friends Mark Foley and Keith Farnham are making it crystal clear that those who publicly and frequently claim to be most dedicated to enforcing and enhancing the AoC laws are quite capable of flagrantly violating the very legislation they helped pass behind the scenes. The evidence does not suggest that those who publicly proclaim to adhere to an anti-choice ideology are invariably going to be adhering to it behind the scenes, which makes honesty among our community members all the more important.

For all I know you (Dissident) might agree with what I've written here (which is about what *is*, not what *ought to be*). But I think it's worth emphasizing. In evaluating how good a job these people are doing, we should evaluate them against the mainstream culture they are coming from.

And I have noticed how well I do as an "out" hebephile in real life, and how that changes the perspective of those who know me well and who love and respect me. And I have never hidden by pro-choice views from any of them. The majority of my Non friends disagree with me in general principle, but they do not view me as evil or whacky for holding those views. Why? Because they see me on a regular basis striving to be a good friend and a good person despite my natural human flaws, and they see that I tend to behave rationally and cordially despite my youthful personality.

most pro-choicers adhere very strictly to the laws despite how we feel about them out of principle, because we believe it's very unwise for all concerned on many levels to brazenly violate these laws.

You might be right. I'd certainly like to think you're right. But do you have any research to back this up? Is there anything beyond the posts that people make in forums like this one? Where they are in fact prohibited from expressing the opposite point of view if they held it?

And do you have evidence to back up the notion that being anti-choice decreases your chances of engaging in illegal sexual activity behind the scenes? Again, I point to the examples of Mr. Foley and Mr. Farnham as clear evidence that regardless of what someone's true feelings on the nature of these laws may or may not actually be, they clearly do not deter them from hypocritically breaking them. And these men are two of the most zealous antis to ever hold a position of political power! Moreover, their cases of hypocrisy are well known to the general public, thus providing a strong "college" lesson to them about this topic.