Wrong. We are not "dedicated" to mainstream thinking on the subject. Are you dedicated to the mainstream thinking that 2 + 2 = 4, or would you rather say that you have yourself decided it's true? "Mainstream" is a parochial term presuming that all opinions short of legalization are fundamentally the same.

And what, exactly, is there "between" legalization and criminalization, Ethan? You can have moderately nuanced views, but if you favor societal contentions that youths must not have their rights, and are unable to handle those rights, and wouldn't want those rights in the first place, then that is predominantly mainstream thinking.

You leave it to me to point out my decisive rebuttal I made on Tom's blog of your point. Danny is a social conservative whose impulse is to lock us all up.

And your views slide decisively socially conservative when it comes to this particular issue, as do all mainstream liberals in this day and age (contrary to your predecessors in the 1970s, who were full of nuance on this subject). My point was, Danny doesn't particularly care about your ideology, and being anti-choice does not protect you from his assumptions and suspicions.

[T]here is a whole class of nons that we have gotten through to, notably Sarah Goode, the late Margaux Fragoso, the ATSA director, the StopSO director, Klaus Beier (Dunkelfeld), Ray Blanchard, Fred Berlin, David Finkelhor, Michael Seto, Mike Bailey, and Paul Federoff -- the last bunch some of the biggest names in mainstream sex research (all quoted on the VP "Our Supporters" page). They do not support the pro-legalization agenda, but they do support our agenda. We do not need to win over ideological social conservatives to make progress.

Thank you. Now, I will reiterate my rebuttal to your rebutta:

Many of those individuals have more than conservative enough thinking, and you have only "gotten through" to them because they are good for media sites that have to deal with sponsors, and they can therefore get away with their "sympathetic" views for pedophilia and hebephilia as a result.

Some, to their credit, like Mike Bailey, is pretty much on the fence regarding the issue of contact, and has built friendly relations with both B4U-ACT (which is neutral on the topic) and Virped.

However, to quote Ed Chambers from over on Tom's blog in response to you:

"I would like to point out this is an ‘achievement’ of false significance. None of these people allow themselves, or are allowed by others, the breathing space to accept that what we see in the media regarding the molestation, rape and murder of children is something rarely, if at all, to do with genuine child lovers. It is a propaganda machine of hate so that society continues to enjoy having a demographic to demonise and deride.

"Sarah Goode is a sociologist with such puritanical views that any of her work on topic is biased by default, regardless of the methodology she may use. That people actually listen to her at all is surprising bearing in mind the rhetoric she has used in the past. The experiences of Margaux Fragoso, RIP, she often regarded as neither harmful or abusive, but Ethan ‘you got through to her’.

"StopSO director Juliet Greyson believes that a therapeutical situation with a client is worthwhile despite said person not being able to discuss the very things they’d wish to, on account of mandatory reporting laws she claims to not to have to abide by. Indeed, their strict views on intergenerational intimacy and child pornography are very much of the puritanical mainstream view.

"Klaus Beier’s PPD manual is based upon the guiding principle that no person under the age of 18, under any circumstances, would ever want to have a sexual experience of any sort with an older person. It was shown in recent studies that many MAPs who attend therapy leave feeling worse about themselves and none the wiser to how they fit into the world.

"And of course, regarding the biggest names in sex research, rarely do these people receive the funding to study the harm, or lack thereof, in intergenerational relationships, let alone any benefits. Being as society has no interest in altering the status quo as far as AOC and child pornography etc are concerned, the research here could be considered very much in line with keeping this tradition due to funding criteria."

That is how Margaux Fragoso re-entered the entire conversation. And maybe we were not the direct cause of all these people's beliefs, but they do all support us and we are most definitely spared their ire.

Yes, but many (not all) either avoid opening dialogue with MAPs who are pro-choice or organizations that accept MAPs of all ideologies (e.g., B4U-ACT), or have acted deceptively to pro-choicers in order to push what is essentially an anti-sex abuse agenda (and connecting it to the MAP attraction bases in the process), like Sarah Goode did.