Talking about conflating

Regarding the overall discussion, I agree with what Dante said in http://annabelleigh.net/messages/703215.htm about people being hostile towards the deviation, regardless of the word used for it.

With the talk about conflation and terms, I find it on-topic to point out how I am confused about what you mean in the last paragraph. If the words are used logically, then the part about Michael Jackson being a child molester adds information on top of the less specific 'had sex with minors'-information bit. So that TOC told claimed that MJ coercively had sex with minors. I don't know, and I don't want to deny actual coercive sex acts, but with all the conflating use of words going on, I'm easily confused.

You know, it's one thing to say, "the forms of little girls are so lovely one wonders why they should ever be covered up", and to do nude and clothed art and photography in dedication of little girls.. it's quite another thing to coerce a child for the purposes of sexual gratification. (and I am not saying that you or Dissident o0r GC advocates the latter).

You make it sound like there can't be much in between, and if people think it's either one or the other, either aesthetic pleasure or molestation, then undue negative reactions towards non-coercive, consensual sexual activity will likely result. I'm not advocating for sex with minors here, I'm talking about accurate judgments, and how nuances and distinctions between coercive and consensual help in that regard. Using accurate terms and requiring such use from others will be more useful, I think, than using a new name.