I am very happy you guys are reading this and I do appreciate the feedback.

I should clarify, as with most terminology, we tried to write a definition of 'child molester' that would fit most situations. We understood that it couldn't be a catch-all.

Definitions do leave out nuance in certain cases, and there will always be exceptions, fringe cases, and various subtleties. We intended the definition to be useful enough to communicate to nons.

It's most important to our team what the definition does, and how it makes our audience think and act. This is inevitably based on what level of detail we go into.

We certainly could write whole articles intending to define the line between consensual inter-generational relationships and children molestation and cover much more ground, and perhaps we should.

However, for an article focused on familiarizing nons with MAPs, the terms associated with MAPs, and how we'd like to be treated, we have to balance complexity with practicality. The definition was written to be reliable, allowing nons to imagine child molesters and child lovers differently.

So yes, you guys are right in asking questions, and I appreciate that you have. It does show that there is a lot of nuance. The most important thing the definition should achieve is creating drawing enough of a line between child lovers and molesters that see what we intended by defining that way.