-I am still not totally convinced that it is right that adults and children should ever have sexual relationships under any conditions.

As I suspected. Thank you for admitting that, as it's an important factor in this discussion, I think you would agree.

For what it may be worth to you, I don't consider you a "bad" person, or evil, or vile, or anything like that for this belief. I consider you simply a product of your time and culture, much as I consider one of my fave authors, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a product of his time for his vocal opposition to the women's liberation movement; and how I simply consider one of my most admired American historical role models, Thomas Jefferson, a product of his time for owning slaves for the entirety of his life. I don't condone those attitudes of these people, and I sure as hell don't support them; but I don't consider Doyle and Jefferson scum of the Earth merely for not fully rising above the conventional belief systems of their time, though I oppose the remnants of those attitudes--i.e., racism and sexism--wherever I see them today. I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

While this has changed a lot since coming to this and other boards, I'm still not 100% convinced. Nor would I ever allow myself to have one with Abby even with it being legal, for that very reason.

A change of attitude takes time; I wouldn't expect you to change within just a few months, because you've spent your entire life exposed to the mainstream "anti" views and have likely never come across a sizable representation of the greater MAP community before - and thus had little, if any, exposure to the pro-choice and youth liberationist views. This isn't surprising, because these views are very often censored from public viewing.

At least you are willing to listen to a view that is contrary to the mainstream, and even currently considered radical (when it's bothered to be listened to without being censored, that is); then again, I'm sure you are aware that most views considered progressive and liberal today were once considered radical, and not in the very distant past. If you are sincere about being open to modify your beliefs and opinions over time, especially with exposure to objective scientific literature, then I commend you. You do need to expect opposition to the anti-choice view here, and a lot of it, but as long as you are genuinely cordial to me and the community, I will be cordial to you.

-It is illegal too, it is also illegal for me not to report.

I have no argument about the legality issue. I'm not asking you to reveal any particular occupation you may have, but I will ask again: Is it legally required for any person where you live to report illegal sexual activity between adults and underagers (again, without telling us or hinting at where you actually live)? If this isn't the case, then I do ask you to ask yourself, Butterfly: Are you certain it's not your remaining anti-choice attitudes that would cause or encourage you to take the measure of calling the police, rather than dealing with the situation on a case-by-case basis? I'm not calling you out there, simply asking you to ask yourself this, answer yourself honestly, and simply ponder the implications of whatever your answer may be.

-I have heard lady, after lady, including one that was very close to me tell me that they are not so much psychologically scared by the molestation as much as they are the fact that people knew and no one did anything. I will not allow that to happen to Abby.

Again, your judicious use of the word "molestation." If Abby was truly being molested in a genuine sense, and you knew this for a fact beyond any doubt or moralistic judgments you may have, then I would not only understand you calling the police, I would applaud it.

-Someone who willingly breaks the law knows of the consequences and severe harm this can cause Abby. I don't do anything with Abby even if I believed it wouldn't harm her because of this. So if someone did happen to be doing anything with her I would be extremely upset because to me that shows he doesn't care about her.

I disagree that such a knee-jerk, negative assumption should always be made about the adult in such a case. Assumptions without evidence are the equivalent of believing hearsay without checking into the matter first, and a form of judging based on personal, moralism-based feelings about the matter in lieu of evidence. Would you be right to lecture the adult about being irresponsible? Yes, I think so. Would you be right to let Abby know in such a hypothetical instance what the consequences would be for both her and her partner if they were "found out," and very firmly at that? I would say most certainly.

But the fact remains, even good people are human, and the desire for romantic fulfillment on all levels is a powerful one, not something that can be taken lightly, dismissed as irrelevant to the human experience, or easily put aside if you truly love the girl in question regardless of the level of principles or inherent goodness of the adult. It's more about sheer willpower than love and goodness of the heart.

This is why, in my almost 13 years of experience with the MAP community, I have noted that MAPs of the anti-choice stance have broken these laws under the right temptations at least as often as those of the pro-choice stance. And this is a reason why despite the fact that I strive to be a good and responsible person to the best of my abilities (which are nothing to sneeze at, as I'm fully law-abiding), I DO NOT make platonic friendships with young adolescent girls, because I do not ever want to be in a situation which may be unusually tempting. I do not mistake my determination to be a good and responsible person with a basically strong will and high-faluting principles to mean I am fully above these powerful and very natural human desires for romantic fulfillment on all levels. Even the most rugged, experienced, determined, and principled mountain climber may waver if he/she ends up confronting the Himalayas.

I'm not saying that all MAPs should take the "stay away" route, and many have had fulfilling friendships with YFs [Young Friends] they were in love with that remained fully platonic past the point where their YF became a legal adult. But IMO, we shouldn't automatically judge those who decided to take the chance, or ended up in unusual circumstances, where they wavered. We should give them the support they need to avoid those circumstances again, and to manage their attractions more effectively in the future, rather than denouncing them as criminals or concluding they couldn't possibly have cared for the girl (or boy) in question. We can all learn to manage our attractions so as to obey these laws, and the majority of us likely succeed, but we cannot for an instant conclude it's because it's easy for any person to do so as long as they are good and caring individuals.

Sorry if that makes me a bad person or something, but yes I would call the police.

No, it doesn't make you a bad person in my eyes, for precisely the reasons I described in this post and my other one in this thread (you did read them, I am presuming). It simply makes you a product of your time, and subject to popular attitudes of that time period regardless of their actual scientific validity, but not a bad person. Being ignorant is not the same thing as being a bad person, but rampant ignorance throughout a culture can lead to the support of oppressive laws that destroy the lives of many, as I'm sure we all know. This is why those of us in the pro-choice sphere of thought challenge those of your stance so vociferously, because these beliefs--when codified into law, rather than simply practiced by choice--have resulted in massive hysteria; draconian legal measures which have hurt all society; witch hunts galore; numerous forms of censorship; and things such as underagers being arrested for forms of sexual expression that in no way involved an adult partner, or even any direct partner (note the youths arrested over the "sexting" phenomenon). This has been the case with any form of moral or sex panic in the past, which is why we believe that democratic solutions to these problems are always preferable to draconian versions.

However, many individuals do not consider a type of ignorance to be a form of ignorance if they happen to live in a period of time, or culture, where/when that form of prejudice is popular and supported by the mainstream. This is why you had basically decent people like children's author L. Frank Baum writing scathingly vicious editorials about Native Americans in the 1880s and '90s without any serious criticism; and no less than President Theodore Roosevelt openly expressing anger in a newspaper during the 1910s when a black Golden Glove boxer decisively defeated a white opponent.

Thank you for listening, and hopefully coming to understand the crux of our stance.