I'm glad we at least have two votes for the idea that the supply of 8-year-olds available as sexual partners to pedophiles "come the revolution" may be sharply limited.

I don't see how the idea that few children would be willing sexual partners must specifically work against pro-contact.

Let's leave aside for a moment how true or false this is. I just don't see how it follows that the statement aids either position.

If few children are willing sexual partners, then the law is unnecessary. Children would not need the state to intervene to prevent them from choosing something they wouldn't choose anyway.

Many countries which have, or had, laws against interracial, extramarital, incest, non-missionary or homosexual sex (and, recently, underage sex) never had laws against bestiality. It is hard to believe that a society that considers any of these immoral enough to ban, thinks bestiality is fine, though. Peter Singer and his strain of Animal Righters would probably argue that this stems from considering animals as property, so sex is only something that you don't ban people from making with their property. The argument may work in some societies -- but clearly there is more than the property status of the partner: non-missionary has been banned even where wives are property of husbands, incest even where children are property of parents, and interracial even when one race is usually living in bondage.

The secret, I think, is that bestiality is, or at least is perceived to be, rarer than any of the above. This implied that so few were engaging in it that it wasn't worth banning; while many more were engaged in the other acts; or at least seriosly considering committing them.

I think the writing of the law is a recognition that children do want sexual contact with adults. If children never sought it or agreed to it, the law would be unnecessary (rape laws exist to cover when there is unwanted sexual contact.) As bestiality laws have been considered unnecessary by types who have taken the time to write sodomy into the books.

So, no, if few children would be available, I don't see how the ban adds anything useful. So the argument is pro-contact.