There are testimonies of the kind you mention. You have to search pretty hard to find them.

Not really. It depends on your criteria for an acceptable sample.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=i+was+molested+and+i+liked+it&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=WXooWu2FMYWR8Qezw7OgCg

My analysis was that there were gay boys who were excited by the sex, but among the others the emotional relationship was the key thing and the sex was rarely better than OK.

That's a good example of a common error people make when thinking about the subject, which is a derivative of the stereotypical pedophile imagery YOU accept and work with. (The stereotype that the average pedo is just wanting to take advantage of certain scenarios for sexual gratification.)

It's not necessarily about the sex; it's about everything else.

"But everything else isn't illegal" - see 721740 for a list of observations about how the current moral program hurts everyone in ways unrelated to sex.

And we're staying away from personal life details.

You can't treat the relationship as one thing and the sexuality as another thing entirely. (That's the error.) The sexuality is present in the very nature of the relationship, in subtle ways at first but increasing in prominence in correlation with the development of hormonal maturity.

It's a love relationship same as any other, and accordingly, each scenario should be treated with distinction.

Which is the opposite from what you generally advocate.

You want state authority rules over respecting personally made decisions, over a matter so especially personal?

In my "best example" (which is really - intentionally - rather neutral), you would prefer that the child's autonomy, the pedophile's autonomy, and the autonomy of every other relevant party including parents, any official guardians, and any other less official forms of guardianship (the pedophile themselves may even frequently fall into this category) be automatically overridden in the name of protecting some greater morality which you actually agree does more harm than good.

This is in total ignorance of all given factors:

- the pedophile's influence on the child's happiness, well-being, safety
- the unique way that the child relates to the pedo (i.e. how the child views the relationship)
- the suitability of the pedophile as a partner to the child in any particular area - including but not necessarily (at all) limited to romantic and sexual behavior - according to the views of any relevant parties to the child's life

In your view, even an ideal example with a saintly pedophile, a child who chose the saintly pedophile as a central figure in their life and feels romantically towards them (really, what little girl wouldn't? ... Has been my personal experience thus far), and families on board with all aspects of the relationship (as in keeping quiet about any innocuous sexual behavior) SHOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO STATE SCRUTINY.

Because children need to be protected? By whom? And from whom?

Why the urge to intervene, as such?

It's called a moral panic and it's created a fucked up mess.

In contrast, the web bends under the weight of thousands of survivors who say that they not only didn't enjoy the sexual part but it had a huge negative effect on their lives.

We can only speculate, but we need to take into account the influence of 721740 on people's extremely fallible memory.

Most people's memories are practically useless when it comes to discerning the nature of a sexual encounter that (let's assume) happened more than 10 years ago. Unless it's a PTSD situation from a violent attack. (And statistics do tell us that the large majority of sex offenders who qualify as preferential pedophiles are actually non-violent but repeat offenders - as if this were an unchangeable sexual orientation that has nothing to do with hurting little kids).

My well-informed guess is that most sexual encounters between kids and pedophiles are innocuous - i.e., generally not considered noteworthy at the time. The switch to considering those encounters abusive occurs equally innocuously somewhere down the line, in the form of a "realization"... probably triggered by someone's moral panic.

I also think most forays into sexual territory between pedos and children are child-driven. That's a matter of psychology and I could write a whole post about it, but basically it's just a matter of how the pedo and the child treat one another.

And by the way: society does have a clear way of making the distinction between "girl lovers" and the notorious "pedophiles" as a class of individuals who would damage children to feed their impulses (because for most of us, the latter was never an option).

If we let them watch for themselves, they often come to the right conclusions. Most people work that way.

Anyone with eyes can tell an abusive dynamic apart from a loving one.

Yes, sometimes both are happening simultaneously... but that's a rather rare and tragic case.

Even harder to find on the web than positive memories are the testimonies of girls who wanted to have sex with older guys, but they refused because it was illegal, and the girl felt seriously harmed.

Because she didn't exactly have a whole lot invested at that point.

If you stop the development of something before it even starts, there isn't anything to lose... that much is true. Whether we should allow children the freedom of to choose where to invest their energies is the point of contention. It's a rather fundamental question which is why I typically don't have patience for anyone whose answer isn't "yes".

What we could make more common would be lots and lots of rapes.

What portion of the human population exactly do you feel is wicked enough to carry out the rape of a little girl... but would only do so under the condition that happy, consensual relationships between the youth population and the nonviolent pedophile population were mercifully let be?

Rape is still rape and we could even say that child rape should be treated much more severely.

My decisive opinion is that under the above conditions, sexual attacks on girls previously under the "Age of Consent" would be significantly less common than they are now.

(And - as per my reasoning above - I don't think they're actually nearly as common as your newspaper-reality would have you believe.)

And what is this culture?

In my estimation?

The collective culture of youth; liberty; the internet; music, art, and other forms of creation; recreational usage of substances, especially marijuana; etc....

Essentially everyone under the age of 30, with an IQ of more than 100.

Is ready for "but we love each other".

That's not to mention the key academics and some other noteworthy persons.

And I only have experience with the first world.

But - like I said - the requisite condition is to be a real person. (You have to open up and let people get to really like you.)

Then you'll see real support from other real people like yourself. Not political support, mind you (which at this stage in the game is more than likely to be a red herring anyway); rather, the type of support that makes your life worth actually living. You know?

If VP achieves our goal, the public recognizes that there are pedophiles who see children pretty much as they do -- better off without sex with adults....

That's not a worthy goal when you still haven't answered WHY in the first place. Raising awareness is a basically good thing, but you have to be aware of the trickle effect of your narrative, and how it's damaging to our already dire position.

The end result of your narrative is pedophile-supported pedophile genocide.

I'm not offended.

Good. More fun for me. Keep it coming.

~ RBL