Depends on what you mean by 'accepted'

If you mean, will we ever be accepted as a group of individuals with a full-fledged sexual orientation and protected by the gov't from harassment and abuse, I think that is a distinct possibility and it's what I'm working for. In some small measure I have achieved it at DU and within my real-life social connections. I think this is goal is amenable to education. However . . .

Gays were only able to get accepted into society because they were able to assimilate quite well into pre-existing social structures. They became "normal" by abandoning all that was too radical and pursued marriage and traditional parenting instead. There is no such possibility for childlovers, we are too radical, too different. We are a threat to the family, to monogamy and to the culturally defined innocence of children that the current established institutions seek to uphold.

I've been saying this from the beginning. The goals of pro-contact/choice MAPs would completely invalidate or overturn a social paradigm that has existed pretty much forever. I think it is a pipe dream to think we, a minority despised above all others, could even begin to affect social policy so profoundly. Our ideas will never be taken seriously unless we already have some degree of acceptance, which is why I don't believe it is in our interest to work towards youth liberation. As I said before, we are not the people who should be fighting for youth lib: it makes both us and the youth lib movement look even more suspect, and holds us back on our other goal of simple acceptance and representation, which I feel is far more important for us at this time.

The youth lib stuff is feel-good politics for CLers, but it is a slow poison in this tainted environment. It isn't good for anyone, least of all us. No matter how right MAPs may be on some of these points, we live in the era of Fox News. Truth is irrelevant in this post 9/11 atmosphere; what matters is what people believe, and if they are convinced you're only out to rape their kids, no amount of logic or evidence will persuade them. In fact, as Sincerity (a BLer) pointed out over at DU, there is evidence that a person who is adamantly convinced of their position will grind in their heels and be more convinced of what they believe rather than less the more facts you throw at them. I've certainly seen that happen in my own family. The current zeitgeist is one in which it is okay to eschew science in favor of emotion; we simply cannot thrive in such an environment. But I do think we can come to an uneasy peace with the rest of society if we abandoned the child lib goals--at least for now--and simply worked to gain acceptance.

Although some try to "fit in" by denying that they want to have sex with anyone younger than 17 and that they can't help their attractions, these people only make the case for society to send them into treatment as sick people who need professional help, not as people with a legitmate orientation.

I think you gravely misunderstand the goals and views of protectionist MAPs like myself. I am certainly not out to fit in, as you put it. I am about as opposite as you can get to the subset of society in which I live. I do not apologize for or downplay my political views, etc., and it has cost me in some cases. This is not about selling out, unless you consider having some modicum of privacy and safety to be selling out. Were the Jews who worked with the Nazis in the concentration camps to preserve their own lives sell-outs? I think there's a point where all bets are off and you do what you have to do to survive and maybe have some degree of a quality life. I'm not quite at the latter yet but I'm getting there. I have a girl in my life who is very important to me, whom I love dearly and am allowed to spend time with, despite my sexual orientation. Given the situation we find ourselves in these days, I'd say that is about as good as can be expected. Anything further would probably make my situation worse, not better. If people find that selfish, so be it. Ultimately my main concern is the girl, because I am a girl lover, not a girl-love lover.

Also, I don't deny the sexual component of my orientation. That would be ridiculous. But I don't think you characterize it properly. Finding someone sexually alluring does not equate to wanting to have sex with them. The base sexual orientation does not equate to a desire to do anything; when I see a beautiful little girl I don't generally think, "Ooh, I wanna do her." It is almost an unconscious recognition of her sexual attractiveness and no thoughts of any particular activities accompany it, until I consciously think them.

Thirdly, I do not see myself as sick or in need of professional help for my sexuality. Don't make the mistake of ascribing black-and-white motives or ideas to those with whom you disagree. Too many people here seem to accept this notion as gospel, but in many cases it is wrong.

So until society changes dramatically and many of the old traditions and institutions die off, I fear we will never be accepted no matter how rational and logical we present our arguments.

Again, it depends on what you mean by acceptance.