Re: Researching the mind of a pedophile

believing my feelings would be inherently harmful to act upon is not good for self-esteem.

Using the word "my", you imply this is your judgment for your own personal psychology, and I accept that. You seem to allow that it might not be that way for others like me.

And you ... go by a common sentimental, moralistic belief of female fragility, only transposed onto particularly younger females in this case.

You have added the adjectives "common", "sentimental", and "moralistic" and I don't see evidence for applying them to me.

"Female fragility" is not based on a generalized female fragility, but to a tendency to distress with regard to sex. Evo psych would strongly suggest that females care greatly about this, which is why rape tends to be so distressing, as does the perception in the moment that a relationship will be long-term and later discovery that it is not. Remember that we are talking about a rather hypothetical situation in which current societal attitudes are profoundly changed. It is impossible to know what would happen, but the evo psych consideration suggests that distress would remain -- and could well be expressed in extreme difficulty in actually bringing about those societal changes.

And your suggested solution is total prohibition ... which reeks of a draconian solution to a largely moral issue.

It may be "largely moral" in the views of many, but I assert that it isn't in my case. Of course it depends on what you mean by "moral". I assume that you view the denial of rights to minors as a strongly moral issue -- it is immoral to deny them those rights, but I presume you don't want to be tagged as a moralist. So you must mean "moralism" to mean something else, and I'd guess conventional notions that sex is morally wrong unless done under certain specific circumstances.

"total prohibition ... draconian" This depends on how you see the underlying landscape. I see very few prepubescents inherently interested in sexual relationships, and little harm to postpubescent minors if sex is kept out of relationships with adults. You seem to see these cases as more common or more important. I assert they are of intense interest to a community like this one because of interest in being on the other end of those sexual relationships (even if unlikely in practice and in some distant future when societal values have changed).

I'd suggest an analogy to shoplifting. We've got a societal rule that it's wrong. If somebody really needs something, doesn't have the money, and is going to return it unharmed the next day, is it still wrong? Arguably not. I suppose you might get leniency from a judge in a case like that. But advertising it as "shoplifting is sometimes OK" isn't good social policy, and could easily lead to rationalizations and endless court cases with little merit. Blanket prohibitions can be matters of good social policy, not imposition of morality. "Adult-child sexual activity is always wrong" is justified in my mind as good social policy. You may recall that in cases of adult-child sexual activity, I favor less severe penalties to begin with and feel that unless a minor is willing to say that she (or he) was wronged, the case shouldn't proceed. That's not moral absolutism.

As for Robert Epstein's test, I suppose it could work in theory. But how many kids are going to go before a committee to argue their right to sexual activity? Would it be any more important than a Justified Shoplifting Commission? It's certainly a public relations disaster for pedophiles to suggest it. Yeah, I know you don't care -- principle above all else.

There is no scientific evidence in many objective studies that says the harm factor is inherent, or divorced from iatrogenic and sociogenic harm. It is, therefore, a belief based on moralistic precepts, not a scientific evaluation based on empirical data.

My point is that saying that there is no scientific basis for my beliefs allows the explanation from your point of view that my beliefs are based on science but incorrect rather than being based on moralistic precepts.

the main reason males in our modern society are usually stronger than women is because women feel it's unattractive to build up their physical acumen

I think you are wrong here. They don't have the testosterone so their bodies build up that sort of muscle mass only with extreme difficulty if at all -- or with doping. I'm with him on the "Who cares?" reaction as it pertains to women's opportunities or self-esteem, etc.

I think I'll go through your suggested bibliography as a top-level post.