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.

Fully agreed.

I may note that I do entertain the fantasy of fully consensual and harmless penetration of a preteen girl; but I know very well her actual body's limitations too and even if penetrating her were fully legal, like with anything else that does not involve sex, I would still not do it if it hurts her.





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.

Now this?

Pshaw!

The 5 and under crowd are doing this with each other all the time!

Yes, it would be yummy to participate too.