I agree with you.

The context for my quote was not us talking among ourselves but how we should address the public.

Most of the public are shocked when confronted by what the law is, as opposed to what they believe the law ought to be. Most law-abiding are shocked when confronted with the many unknown laws they break daily. And even Antis can be shocked by the very laws they thought they supported; as was Megan's mum when she found that the law named after her daughter placed many daughters on the SOR for life as CP creators.

Sexual minorities are especially vulnerable to this. The gays asking for acceptance couldn't really tell the public, "We commit sex-crimes at a greater rate than you, we encourage this among our fellows and nothing you can do will stop us from doing this." When both gay sex and rape ARE "rape" the only way to explain what they want is to declare an opposition to "rape."

I would hope that the later statements on "victimless crime" would allow an interpretation on what was meant by propensity for crime. Yes, I'm conflating both what IS and what SHOULD be. We shouldn't do that in talking amongst ourselves. But public statements are meant to both reflect and shape reality. ( I have a dream. ) :)

Dante