Thanks for the time and trouble you've taken, Ethan. You have given me some things to think hard about and that is always a good thing.

You're right that 18 points is too much – I'm looking to see if any points can be jettisoned and if any can be merged. And you're also correct that I should give a bit more thought to the sequence (I have already given it quite a bit of thought – but I acknowledge that it can do with some improvement).

Your categorisation of the 3 types of paedophiles is valid but has only a limited significance to the list, I think. Really the list tries to deal with issues that by-and-large precede any decision on the paedophile's behalf on how they should act. The list argues that, taken out of the context of a society that would impose harm on a consensual, caring relationship, child-adult sensual/sexual relationships are not intrinsically unethical or harmful. It addresses the 'philosophy' of paedophilia rather than the 'practice' – moreover I acknowledge in points 4, 5, 7, 10 & 12 a broad acceptance of celibacy as the 'expedient' option.

I know you won't agree with me, but I think it's possible for members of all 3 categories to be 'ethical' – it's just that each face different problems, and, yes, there are more pitfalls and traps for those in category 3.

“To me there is a stark contrast between your portrayal in the introduction of how persecuted we pedophiles are and your willingness to argue for adult-child sex with only an occasional caveat about iatrogenic harm”

The goal of the list is certainly not to argue for “adult-child sex” in practice, but it certainly argues for it in theory.

“In point 1 you acknowledge that pedophiles are normal people, with the same range of personalities as anyone else. But by point 2, pedophiles have suddenly become model citizens.... If you framed lots of this as, "Let me tell you about the best pedophiles and their intentions and desires, while recognizing that others may not be so nice and we don't know their relative numbers", that would be more realistic.”

Well, in my experience the huge majority of people are pretty deep-down decent, whether heterosexual, homosexual, paedophile or whatever. I recognise that there's a range in each group from psycho to saint – but when people talk about the average heterosexual relationship, the average homosexual relationship they don't have to bring in the rapists and the nut-jobs just to make sure they're covering the range of possible behaviours. Anyway, we don't have to remind people of the worst that can be said of paedophilia because that's all the general public get to hear about : I'm interested in redressing the balance towards my experience of the truth.

However I also thing argumentum ab meliore is a valid form of thinking, the mirror of the reductio ad absurdum – if something can be shown to be correct and ethical in an ideal case then that establishes that a prima facie case can be made for it philosophically and even in practice.

“...But you freely accept the expressed beliefs of the self-selected people who post here and similar boards without worry about representativeness.”

On this issue (see point 17) - who on earth has access to a representative sample? But actual paedophiles themselves are a huge and hugely significant source of data that hasn't been honestly and rigorously investigated. What better source of evidence is there for what paedophiles think, feel and do than these loose congregations on the net? Prison populations? I don't think so. Moreover paedophiles have an experience that is unique, but entirely ignored and dismissed in discussions of child sexuality.

"You quote "The Trauma Myth" but you are using a reinterpretation of her conclusions -- not her own.

Well, one of the things that is striking about her book is that some of her conclusions really don't follow very convincingly from her premises – it reads as if there was pressure on her to tone her conculsions down to pre-empt a backlash of moral outrage, I suspect her publishers lost their nerve.

“In terms of children's consent, I'd say you have laid out a best case, given the right sort of child and the ideal sort of pedophile.”

No-one knows how common this 'best-case' scenario is : how could statistics for this be compiled given that any sensual/sexual interaction between a child and adult is illegal. But I strongly suspect that for the huge majority of paedophiles this represents their 'ideal' scenario for any relationship they'd engage in, the scenario of their dreams . That this is the case in itself seems to me to be very significant and important corrective to what the public and media imagine about the average paedophile.

“But you don't address how common that combination is or what happens if ideal conditions are not met or whether social policy should be based on the best case or the average or worst cases.”

Ahh – you'd have me write a book rather than a list, Ethan!

“In suggesting that pedophiles don't seek penetration, you imply (I think) that we are talking about prepubescents. In the public mind, young teens are also children, and reasonable people know that they themselves may have an intense interest in penetration. It's worth addressing the ages of children you wish to cover.”

You're right – I need to make some mention of the difference between hebephilia, ephebophilia, paedophilia – and that my list deals really with paedophlia.

Once again, thanks for the trouble you've taken.