Mes, thank you for reading the book and citing a review.

It seems that everyone who participated in the MAA Daily Lives study were highly impressed with Sarah Goode's seeming politeness, honesty, and willingness to treat us fairly. After seeing the first review of the book, it would appear that many seem to give her the benefit of the doubt in stating her honest beliefs about mutually consensual adult/child sexual contact being inherently harmful to the child, which looked awkward and illogical in light of Ms. Goode's analysis of MAA sexual desires and emotional feelings earlier in the book.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Ms. Goode already made up her mind on adult/child sexual relationships on an a priori basis before she even began her study of the MAA community. She gave MAA's a fair shake as human beings, but I think (like Minstrel said) she was concerned a bit too much about her reputation. She wanted to make an impact on the field, so she chose to compromise with our community: she would treat us fairly as human beings, and show the world that we are not all inhuman monsters, but she would not disagree with societal customs regarding intergenerational love and sexuality, and she wouldn't challenge society's pre-existing attitudes towards child (and young teen) sexuality. The fact that this all looks so awkward makes it clear, in my eyes at least, that she had come to this conclusion before she even began getting to know this community as human beings.

Now, as to the opinions presented that she may at some point in the future be convinced that adult/child sexual contact is not inherently harmful. That depends on whether or not Ms. Goode will earn an increased respect for children and young teens at some point in the future. She needs to study the youth liberation movement to learn of the inherent potential of young people. If she ever does this, then perhaps she will draw a different conclusion about intergenerational love and sexual contact. However, I agree with CatcherintheRye's response...she may be too afraid to come to this conclusion publicly. Too many people believe that if they are pro-choice on adult/child sexual contact they will be reviled right out of a career, and that they will have less support from their employers and friends. So while she was willing to challenge and contradict society's prevailing notions on MAA's, she was NOT willing to challenge and contradict society's prevailing notions on youth competency and potential. And this opens up a lot of questions unanswered at this point about Sarah Goode and her conclusions: what does she think of the increasingly draconian laws passed against MAA's every single year, the strong opposition the government shows to any type of expression of MAA sexual desires, and the vigilantes who routinely try to entrap hebephiles or Non adults with hebephiliac inclinations in chat rooms? If any of this was answered in the book, you didn't mention it in your review, Mes.

All in all, I come to the conclusion that this book was a mixed bag. Perhaps if I met Sarah Goode and worked with her on a project, I would be more inclined to be impressed with her honesty and integrity. But I'm not sure...in the past, my battles on this board with Heather Peterson has made it clear that I'm critical of and immune to being "impressed" by Non's who come into this community with a heavily anti-contact/anti-choice and disrespectful attitude to younger people simply because they are nice to us and are willing to believe that we are not inhuman monsters and even go so far as to befriend us. On the other hand, I realize that we can't ask too much of people and their open-mindedness at this point in time. As I said in my earlier response to Minstrel, I try to look for a balance in what I expect from Nons who interact with our community on a professional basis: I don't expect the whole pie from them, but I do expect more than simple crumbs thrown to us. I expect perhaps a slice, or a few slices, of the pie. I expect an honest evaluation of youth potential and competency in addition to an honest evaluation of MAA character and desires. I think those Nons who like us as people but support the continued war against any type of expression of our sexuality and agree with the hard line attitude that the government and popular culture has taken to prevent intergenerational relationships are walking contradictions, and there is something off kilter about liking and respecting a certain group of people but at the same time not being supportive of their rights (because they think to do so would ruin their already sullied reputations beyond repair and would likewise intrude upon the "rights" of children and teens).

In conclusion, I am thankful to Sarah Goode for making it clear to all who read her book that we deserve to be treated as good human beings rather than demonized as inhuman monsters who lack even a shred of human decency. On the other hand, I also ask her to be more open-minded about youth sexuality and to consider that if we are predominantly good people we can be trusted to have romantic relationships with younger people.