>I am not "denying nature" as a whole.

In so far that nature, be it the nature of pedophilia or logic, comes into conflict with your cherished cultural conjecture or feminist/progressive apologism, you always do.

As far as I'm aware, even very mild attempts to change PVFs (by their own choice) - ex-gay theraphy - is frowned upon today. In bringing up PVFs as evidence for your cultural conjecture, you also opened the door for my experimental question. As should be obvious, from the context, N refers to an arbitrarily large integer, while "exclusive" refers to exclusive pedophiles.

For those believing the conjecture regarding "culture", a naturalistic laboratory setting would be ideal, as "culture" could then be varied to produce the desired affects. Failure to demostrate such an experiment is evidence against the claim of changes in sexuality (as is, of course, the continued existence of pedophiles in deeply hostile cultures).

Of course, looking to biology, we see that pedophilia and minor attraction in general need not be limited to humans.

>Regarding feminism, it has always been sex-negative (i.e., conservative) feminists who promoted statutory rape laws.

Counter-examples are easy, from Josephine Butler (liberal), to the progressives supporting anti-pedophilia in the 19th and 20th century, and the sex-positive feminists promoting anti-pedophilia now.

The existence of a low US AoC (average 10 to 12, lowest 7) is also strong evidence against your claim of "oppressive, traditionalist, sex-negative norms" and demonization of conservatives.