Er? Is that a full list?

no, it's not a full list. it's an approximate definition, and in the piece it is found its primary purpose is to provide a reasonable-enough differentiation between the act of coerced, manipulative, or forceful sex - which should rightfully be condemned - on the one hand; and the chosen group identity of "child-lovers", whose primary concerns have to do with the state of being that is "attracted to juvenile girls / boys" and how that attribute manifests, on the other.

the typical presupposition is that the latter necessarily manifests as the former, and that's an empirically false supposition - yet it still isn't treated as such by a large segment of the population (which is hopefully shrinking).

it's not a precise and comprehensive definition of the category "people who have molested children"... however, it is much more narrow, precise, and accurate in its precision than the definition "pedophile". and it is superior for that reason. it at least attempts to differentiate between "those who molest children and those who do not" based on the standards of "lack of malicious intent" (i.e., no coercion, manipulation, or force) and what i would call "altruistic concern" - that is, genuine regard for the person in question beyond immediate gratification.

so as well as differentiating the rightfully condemned act from the group identity (to which there is actually only a very limited amount of correlation, and if you measure "child-lovers" against "the rest of the population" in terms of overall abuse statistics by rate of occurrence, then that's even more telling as to the fallacious nature of the condemnation of the group and the demonizing and ostracizing that goes on in the name of it), VOA's definition actually goes so far as to absolve a significant portion of adult-child sexual interaction that happens overall - of course, based on those standards. which i think is still imperfect, but better.

ultimately there can't be a perfectly precise definition of what child molestation is because it's not a very precise concept; it's a concept with many loose ends, and all kinds of situational complexities that make those waters variably murky.

but as far as clarifying goes, for all intents and purposes, i would say VOA's definition is a relative win despite every single hole you might discover you can poke in it... if only for the sake of separating out the babies from the bathwater.

~ loom