But...

Well...there is. Having a sexual relationship with a child is by statute illegal, and 'minor attraction' implies a desire to have that very sexual interaction.

But, as you recognised below yourself, this is no different from what the adult attracted have to do too. Whether it's because it's "inappropriate" or illegal, the imperative is identical. And with all those sexual harassment laws now, it's questionable whether there is much left that is legal anyway, so we are not in too different a boat...

Not really comparing paedophilia with any of the following situations, as I know they are clearly not the same... if there is a sodomy law, that doesn't mean homosexuals cannot avoid breaking it... if there is an adultery law, that doesn't mean married people cannot avoid breaking it... if there is a sexual harassment or rape law, that doesn't mean heterics cannot avoid breaking it... the problem with breaking the law is not in the law - it's in the person breaking it. (This is not about whether or not the law is "fair" - that's clearly another issue).

Of course, we do have to deal differently, because unlike the case of today's heterics, for us legality doesn't depend on consent. I agree that that makes our case not be the same. Otoh, that is (whatever your opinion is on aoc vs. abolition) clearly social, rather than inherent in the attraction. Not that psychology cannot be about social compliance - but it is important to notice the difference in this context.

The really bugging thing here, at least to me and I assume to anyone who replied along these lines, is not in the stats or anything of the sort, but in the assumption that we find self-restrain more difficult than teleiophilic people do. I sincerely don't think so. There is nothing in "I like kids" that makes the actual action of acting out harder to avoid than it is for "I like adults" to avoid illegal or inappropriate actions.

Don't bog me down with statistics either, my point remains.

Yes and no.

Your point remains because you were arguing about only us and our attraction base, therefore stats comparing by orientation are indeed irrelevant.

But no, because you (and the original wording that was criticised) are still assuming that orientation is a predictor of criminality. While it can be a predictor of some criminological factors (same as gender and race can be), the fact is that the conscious decision of breaking the law depends little on orientation and a lot on other factors totally unrelated to it.

Its kinda like saying that someone who has a desire to commit arson has no connection with someone who breaks the law.

LOL!!!!!

Most instances of arson are (1) murders through arson, (2) cover-ups of other crimes through fire, (3) terrorist, revenge, intimidation or other kinds of direct attacks on property, or (4) insurance frauds. Pyromaniacal acts are quite behind any of the above as causes of arson, and in turn all are quite behind accidental fires... and btw, the job with most pyromanics are firemen - as they are the guys who can legally get closest to a raging fire...

So, you kinda proved it...

However...

Your generalization is shaky...I am not convinced for a second that some here do not have to restrain themselves when dealing with LGs. We are able to refrain from sexual interaction, true, but do not pretend that it is simple and easy.

BTW I also do not agree that restraining one's sexual feelings is at all reasonable in the first place. Refraining from sexual interaction is one thing, but causing one's self not to have those feelings is all together different.

I completely agree with you here. Completely.