I think that saying that 20% of people are pedophiles and those who commit offences are predatory pedophiles is a stance that should be considered
The problem I see is that "offense" is culturally defined and pedophilia is not. In other words, pedophilia is always a sexual attraction to children, but what constitutes an offense changes from place to place and time to time. So what we have is a subset of pedophiles called "predatory pedophiles" based solely on a legal distinction. Anyone can become a "predator" if the laws change, or if one moves to a different jurisdiction. I think most people would consider any expression of pedophilic desires an "offense," even in cases where the child is a willing participant. So what's the point of being recognized as a "non-predatory pedophile" if it means we still aren't free to seek out the relationships we're designed for? The moment we try to practice what we preach, we're right back in the hot seat. It's like telling black people, "We won't lynch you as long as you don't try to vote or sit in the front of the bus."
I think the distinction that needs to be made in the public's mind is the distinction between love and abuse. Right now the paradigm is "good touch, bad touch." What that means is, a touch is good only if it isn't on the body parts that a bathing suit covers. This is arbitrary and puritanical. It stems back to centuries of religious indoctrination that sex is wicked and experiencing that kind of pleasure is wrong in some way. The much more straightforward distinction would be "good touch, bad touch" where a touch is good if it feels good and bad if it feels bad. I don't understand why it needs to be more complicated than that. Loving touches feel good, and abusive touches feel bad. It's not difficult to tell the difference, it's a much more primal response than thinking about whether or not it's in the bathing suit areas or not. Instead of defining an offense as any sexual touch, an offense should be defined as any abusive touch, with the understanding that sexual touching, if it's loving, is not abuse. I'm not sure why this piece of commonsense reasoning is so hard for the general populaton to grasp, but it seems to be. Why won't puritanism die already?
Anyway, my point is that in the current climate, it doesn't matter if we get to wear the booby-prize label of "non-predatory" pedophile, just so we can fit in better with the normals. Nothing will really change until people get it through their heads that not only parents can love children, and love is never wrong, even if it involves sexual touching. Abuse, on the other hand, is always wrong, whether or not it involves sexual touching. Maybe the fact that the same kinds of behaviors can be found under both categories is what confuses so many people. They don't want to believe that children are capable of telling the difference between being loved and being abused. Control freaks. They're the ones who can't tell the difference, and it's because they were raised with such confusing mixed messages about it. So of course they have to repeat the same cycle of abuse onto their own children. But, I digress.
Enigma