Also, why do anti-contact people always assume sexual intercourse that is wild and unrestrained? I'm curious?

That's because the anti-choice camp tries to frame the debate with emotionally charged language and assumptions that color the tone of the discussion, so as to present the matter at hand in the worst possible light. It's a form of emotional manipulation and misuse of language that is common in political campaigns.

Like probably the great majority of hebephiles, for instance, I would have no major problem with limiting any mutually consensual sexual activity I had with young adolescent girls in a hypothetical world where it was legally allowed to outercourse, i.e., simply making out, as they popularly call it. This is because as is typical for true hebephiles, the sexual component of my attractions are much more low key than that of typical adults with a conventional attraction base, with less of a desire for intercourse than Non-MAP adults. Hence, the legitimate concerns of pregnancy and the spreading of STDs would not be serious problems for hebephiliac relationships.

But we know the safety issue isn't truly of paramount concern, but rather the issues of moralistic propriety and control over youth sexuality, along with the fear that many parents have of losing the emotional and social influence they have over their legally and economically dependent children to an extra-familial adult influence. It's similar to the type of fear and concern that certain married people have if their spouse should have a close platonic friend of the opposite gender (or the same gender, in the case of a homosexual couple). However, the major difference is that nowadays in the West and North, husbands do not have de facto legal ownership of their wives; this is not the case when it comes to youths under the age of 18, who are pretty much the property of their parents or other designated legal guardians. Note how husbands continue to treat their wives in much the same way in some of the hyper-patriarchal cultures of the Middle East. Saying there is no political parallel between the two, as certain progressives will claim, is ridiculous.

The sexual desires of genuine pedophiles tend to be even more low key than hebephiles, and expressly on the level of a child. Hence, most genuine pedophiles would have no major issues with laws that simply prohibited full intercourse and sodomy with children, but not simple sex play that children engage in with each other (i.e., "playing doctor"). Even using the word "sex" in place of "sex play," "sexual activity," or "sexual contact" in such discussions is a loaded use of language, since the solitary term "sex" tends to imply intercourse and sodomy in those who happen to read it.

Of course, those of the anti-choice camp will routinely use language and rhetoric to imply that MAPs want to impose adult-level sexual activities upon youths in their preferred age and gender, including a hefty amount of full intercourse, buggery, and all other forms of "kinky" sexual contact the adult sexual realm is known for. This is not meant to reflect reality, but to bias the conversation against intergenerational contact by focusing upon specific legitimate concerns--like the biological limitations of underdeveloped bodies--that are minimal to non-existent when it comes to typical MAP sexual desires.