I am not surprised that your "arguments" here are based on a very high percentage of unbelievable intuitions and guesses, and linked by reasoning that is seriously failing in logic. It confirms my earlier impression.

So, the benefit to me in engaging in this argument is that the occasional newbie to GC (or perhaps the next Markaba) reading the exchange can judge for themselves.

(Mundane hint: In modern usage, underlining means people expect a hot link. Use some other means to indicate emphasis).

If I don't reply further in the thread, surely don't conclude that I've been convinced by anything you said.

Just a few things I'm moved to reply to:


But can you really not see that the moral panic is inextricably tied to the criminalization of the thing?

Criminalization is one factor, but neither necessary nor sufficient. Society is going crazy with bullying and how it makes a few kids kill themselves, but what laws prohibit it is not very clear.

Speeding on highways is illegal but hardly tied with a moral panic.

Not children, and especially not children who see an abuse dynamic going on with the adults around them regularly.

Sorry - did you just say that children aren't capable of discerning love from abuse?

Most emphatically "yes", for lots of children. It is a major factor in how women who were raised in abusive homes often replicate those relationships when they are adults.


'm an exclusive pedophile. My sexual satisfaction relies on masturbation. I have not once - in my entire life - felt that my sexual attraction to a girl was clouding my perception of whether or not she was attracted to me.

In research terms, that's an N of 1. If you consult with buddies on GC, it might get a bit higher. Survey child molesters in prison and you'd find something quite different among that large population.

Sometimes sitting behind the computer screen is a better position for making wise policy proposals than going out and having N=1 experiences.

Sexuality does not cloud judgment enough to cause an otherwise gentle person to carry out a sexual attack on a child.

Who said we were dealing with an "otherwise gentle person"? Society has lots and lots of antisocial people who will take what they can get. Laws have to be made to cover both classes.

Suppose I argue that no one should lock their houses, because no upstanding, normal person would enter another person's house to steal stuff. The obvious intent is to discourage the others, even if they are a minority.

I've offered an answer more than once. On balance, adult-girl relationships are going to be far more often exploitative than all lovey and wonderful.

Claiming something is not the same as providing a convincing explanation. You make this claim a lot. I asked for you to reason it out for me.

I've set down my thinking in much more detail in a series of blog posts indexed here: http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2017/03/index-considering-pro-legalization-pro.html

Addressing the particular question at hand, here:

http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2015/05/costs-and-benefits-for-prepubescents.html

and here:

http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2015/05/how-things-change-when-girl-is-13.html

Well, they can, of course. No one is going to prosecute children for what they do with adults. I wonder if you'd feel any impulse to intervene when a child chooses crystal meth or heroin.

Sorry - did you just compare sexual activity and taking crystal meth?

Yes, I did. There are differences -- but are they relevant? Your job is to say why you might intervene if the child chose drugs but while you trust the child completely when it comes to sex.