Okay, now that I'm back, it's time for me to get involved with this. I'm not trying to be antagonistic to anyone here, but simply very straight up.

In a perfect world I would absolutely not be bothered with those things at all.

As I have often said here before, the "perfect world" statement/argument is inherently and deliberately loaded, since it's well known that a completely "perfect" world will never be established. Hence, antis and those who are generally anti-youth rights (many of whom are not anti "anti") use the term "perfect" to justify forever holding onto draconian laws. This is why I often say that in a better world--i.e., one that was much more progressive and serious about civil rights and constitutional democracy--we could allow free youth expression of sexuality. A "perfect" world is not attainable, but a better world most certainly is, as history has proven can happen with time and activist effort. It doesn't require a "perfect" world for positive (or at least neutral) mutually consensual intergenerational relationships to be allowed to occur via choice by both participants; only a better world, specifically one where the current laws didn't make such relationships too risky to undertake, and where youths had a full political voice in the affairs of society.

-Having your hands down a child's pants is illegal, kissing a child romantically is too. (That depends on the judgement of the court I guess). Depending on the situation I may or may not report it to the police based on that.

This I have no quarrel with. The consequences of being "found out" for both the older and younger participant due to the legality of the situation is very important to consider. Some on both sides of the age divide will continue to take these risks simply because they are human and our natural desires and emotional needs are powerful influences on the human psyche, and though I won't morally judge such individuals, I strongly recommend that all MAPs and AAMs [Adult Attracted Minors, i.e., legally underage pheophiles] studiously avoid breaking these laws despite how difficult it may sometimes be. This, in fact, is the official position of GC on the matter. And I think the majority of MAPs do manage to stay on the side of the law with effective management of their natural physical and emotional desires.

-Here's the problem though. Where I live there are mandatory reporting laws for children that are being molested no matter how minor people think the crime is. So if I did not report it I would go to prison. (I wont lie. I would most likely report it anyway even without this law. Just depends on the situation).

Do the mandatory reporting laws count if you are just a regular citizen who is not a LEO, an MHP [Mental Health Practitioner], parent of the minor(s) involved, teacher, social worker, etc.? And this depends on the definition of "molesting" you are using: the strict legal definition--which consigns all adult/underager sexual contact to this category; or the realistic definition--which would only include, for the most part, unwanted or truly unexpected advances by an adult on an underager (or "any-ager," for that matter). The indiscriminate use of the legal definition only--i.e., always saying "molesting" or "molestation" instead of, say, "sexual contact" or other value neutral terms depending upon the context and/or the facts known about any individual case--will justifiably get you into "hot water" and come off as moralistically judgmental amidst the majority of the MAP community.

For the record, I would understand if you reported a case of genuine abuse you discovered was going on; I would not agree if you reported a non-abusive, consensual intergenerational relationship occurring "behind the scenes" if you weren't seriously at risk of legal censure for not doing so.

Knowing that Abby has no other male adults she is around if one were in the room doing those activities with her I would assume the worse. Sorry, but even pedophiles need to work to change the laws and not selectively break them, and that guy would be breaking the law.

For the most part, I fully agree with the second sentence of the above excerpt.

For the most part, I do not agree with the first sentence, because I do not think assuming the worst or "erring on the side of caution" when you do not have all the facts is a justifiable action, but the very essence of these draconian laws, and an example of willfully "jumping the gun." Mind you, this should not be taken as a license to encourage or "do nothing" about a potentially "explosive" illegal activity going on in your midst; you could always sit down both the adult and youth involved in a consensual relationship--after you look into the matter to verify it wasn't truly abusive to your satisfaction--and explain the serious consequences of getting caught to them; strongly advise them to cease and desist; and to seek out legal & ethical alternatives for managing their attractions legally and positively--or you will not be responsible for what may happen if they are "found out."

As such, you have no reason or obligation to be loyal to any law simply because it happens to be a law, unless you took a personal vow to uphold it for whatever principles you may have, or unless it was the expectation of whatever job you may hold - and even that is not loyalty to that particular law per se, but following rules in a "by the book" fashion so you do not risk losing your job and getting into legal trouble of your own. I fully believe that there are less extreme methods of encouraging members of the MAP community (and AAMs, if need be) to abide by the laws and work on changing them by civilized and democratic means via firm but lawful activism than calling the police on them for non-abusive situations. To me, there is something extremely unsavory about that.

Its amusing I have nons that I have been discussing things with saying that I am a coward and a terrible person for the fact that I am even around children. I have pedophiles saying I am a coward and not good around children for saying that I would be very against an adult having a sexual relationship with Abby in that I would call the police if it was happening.

Regarding the second sentence (being a hebephile, and therefore a MAP of a certain category, myself), I do not call you a coward or "not good" around children for your quickness to call the police on an adult for believing that the laws should be obeyed. I am simply opining that you are taking an extreme and ethically dubious tactic, as you may not be fully considering the destruction of that MAP's life that will occur on all levels if you report him/her, nor the consequences on Abby--or another hypothetical younger underager involved--if they are forced into brainwashed "therapy" and told that their adult partner was "just using them," was a "vile" and "maliciously selfish" human being, told they are "damaged goods" for life, and subject to extreme psychological "conditioning" (which is a very abusive form of behavior modification) if they resist these attempts at being convinced they were a "victim" & refuse to hate their adult partner and denounce the validity of the relationship.

Granted, that particular MAP would certainly be guilty of irresponsibility with a heavy degree of potential consequences, but it doesn't mean that he/she was maliciously selfish, acting only on his/her own gratuitous desires, or that he/she actually cared nothing for the underager involved. MAPs/MAAs are as human as any other human, and our natural human desires are as important and potent (typically no more or no less so) than the typical teleiophile, and as such some of us have to be expected to make mistakes at times, no matter how "good" or "bad" we are as a person. This is not to say we shouldn't all strive to stay on the right side of the law, of course.

Again, I'm not attacking you here, but simply trying to encourage you to think this through before ever making such a decision, and to only go consider such a decision on a case-by-case basis.

You opinion is always welcome though. I have been wrong before, will be wrong again, and love it when someone changed my opinions.

Thanks for you thoughts.

This was more than fair enough. Thank you for listening to both Gatekeeper and myself.