Although it can be said that certain sexual contact with minors is not necessarily harmful, the antis are a long way off from seeing this. This is where we must take their side in order to help justify our cause.

We mustn't engage in intellectual dishonesty in our attempts to change people's minds. For one thing, that would make us partially responsible for the spread of misinformation (which in turn could have dire consequences in terms of harm done to other people), and for another thing, intellectual dishonesty can be found out, and that would cast doubt on any other arguments we were making.

On the first point: there are many people clamouring for harsher sentences - up to and including the death penalty - for people who have any kind of sexual contact with a child. If we agree with the idea that all sexual contact with a child is necessarily harmful, we are bolstering the arguments of those who clamour for such sentences. "See? Even the pervs agree that sexual contact necessarily harms children! So it must be true!"

I do not condone any sexual contact with a child while it remains illegal, but neither do I condone disproportionately severe sentences for those who do break the law.

Mr. Crab