"It's worth drawing a distinction between abuse within a nuclear family and abuse from someone outside inflicted on a child inside."

This either/or dichotomy seemingly ignores those outsiders who are insiders. Lanning's major accomplishment was the focus on acquaintances intimately trusted by the family; clergy, coaches, &tc. Oftentimes acquaintance molestation is made easier by the family extending the same trust they reserve for themselves ( as statistically unwarranted as it is ) to these parental surrogates.

With the true outsider a very small source of harm, it seems that folks are more likely to overlook the greater source of harm because they don't want to allow the child's judgement on matters of sexual self-determination to usurp their authority. But whether its the denial that an uncle is up to something or telling children that their pastor ought to be obeyed because he acts in their interest; it simply grooms the child and dismisses their "childish" objections. Without freedom to disassociate from family and surrogate family, the abused child will be repeatedly delivered to her abuser.

"Taking kids away from parents and putting them in foster care is its own huge disruption and often makes things worse."

Pushing the child into harm's way is done by Parents and the State alike. Any other authority empowered to forcibly override the child's choice "for their own good" would end up doing the same. But this goes without saying for all people whose actions aren't drastic enough to warrant conservatorship. Society used to do the same with Women and Minorities. Were their interests being served?

"The evidence is quite good that pedophiles account for a large proportion of child sex abuse (as society defines it), and an even greater proportion if you exclude abuse from within families."

No. Not unless you also allow the a situational offender to be defined as a "Pedophile" because of the victim and despite a different sexual orientation.

It used to be assumed by the ignorant that Homosexual prison rape was committed by Homosexuals. We know better now. But lots of luck convincing pre-'73 society of that. The "received wisdom" ran counter to the facts.

As society defines it you're going to molest and haven't done so yet. But when you call yourself a "Pedophile," you're trying to go to the experts and educate society away from its ignorant beliefs. Yet when you talk about Molester's suddenly the experts are wrong and society is right? You really can't chose for them what they believe. Nor can you chose for the LEAs what their data says.

"Recognizing those facts is part of establishing common ground with the person you are trying to convince -- identifying what you share."

Yes. And GC posters do. We believe that harm to girls is bad. This is a shared belief. They say that Pedos are Child Molesters. This is NOT a shared belief.

You claim that focussing attention on the accidental overlap between the two ( the Child Molester who happens to be Pedophile ) is necessary. But I say that you are focussing on an area where you disagree and that it takes away from the shared belief that Pedos hate Child Molesters as much as Nons do if not more.

They would be right to tell VirPed that its purely a selfish motive that makes you denounce and distance yourself from your "fellows."

If I'm going to focus on challenging anything in this claim, it is that we need to shun something which isn't us to begin with. The DOJ agrees.

" If we went by press coverage, I'd say the VP approach is looking more promising."

And the press was still slandering those vile queers long after the APA and LEAs recognized that they were ignorant for doing so. Ultimately what shifted was the laws. And with the laws came more self-outing. And the realization that all those beloved batchelor-uncles might not've been waiting for the "right girl."

You change the minds of the outliers who influence policy before you change the press clippings. And judging by the mistrust, hatred and scorn, I'd say that you aren't very successful in anything but trying to get name-dropped. Sure, reminding them of the Monster gets you press. But it doesn't defang the Monster or defuse the ticking-time-bomb. And it makes stories about you out to be “the most horrifying piece in the world.”

But THAT would be another point of agreement. ;p

Dante