...when you focus your understandable anger into insightful commentary rather than the hurling of ad hominems, the result is something far more insightful than I can ever say in my own words, and extremely important reading for every psychologist and sociologist worthy of the Ph.D! Thank you!

And trying to say that it should always be considered very bad even when not bad is - again - just an insane stance to take because of the "collateral" of hurting BOTH CHILD AND ADULT when that social policy damages their lives in a case where it would otherwise be fine. I.e.,

[Snip!]

As is clear from all engagement with antis, including those within our own community (*waves to Ethan*), their main concern is not the safety or well-being of kids, either physically or emotionally. They will gladly, as you noted, traumatize kids and tolerate the relentless emotional abuse and shaming of them if it's done for the purpose of preventing them from engaging in sexual activity, especially with older people, or even of potentially enticing them with their sexual beauty. Remember the Miley Cyrus example? This is because it both disgusts them and/or (in the case of anti-choice/anti-legalization MAPs) threatens the power structures in society they support (they dismiss anything else as "pie in the sky" and "far-fetched" fantasy that is utterly unachievable due to "human nature"...or so they hope!). It's also why they express nary a concern for the many common practices by society that routinely cause a huge degree of demonstrable harm to kids, including over-reliance on personal automobiles and policies of pre-emptive war. Their main concern is to stop child and sometimes young adolescent sexuality from being expressed, not to protect kids from demonstrable harm of any sort.