No. People entering a discussion labeled as "pedophile" or "MAP" will never advance the cause of allowing adult-child sex. The only hope of doing that is from the side of children's welfare. The purpose served by discussing such examples here is to build a sense of community. But there are many of us with a passionate attraction to young girls who don't favor trying to make adult/child sex legal or more accepted.

Hi. I'm living proof you're wrong.

Often true, though far from universal. There is typically a huge increase in interest in sex at puberty. Sex (solo masturbation form)*!!!* goes from being one of a great many fun things in life to being near the center of an adolescent's thoughts and centered on other people.

*unnecessary arbitrary restriction of idea*

By condensing what should really be understood as a relatively long-term process into a simple on-off switch, you end up exaggerating the disparate nature of juvenile vs adult sexuality, creating a false dichotomy in your reader's mind. I'm not saying you're doing any of this on purpose, by the way. Though like many others, I don't ignore the potential that you are.

It's not clear [to me] that in a different society this can or should develop that way very often. Adult pedophiles have an obvious desire and vested interest in it turning out that way.

Attempted slight of character through implied desire of adult pedophile for promiscuous relations. Dirty trick son.

Note also the role of parental permission. You can't take kids swimming without parental permission. You can't in general do much with anyone else's kids without parental consent. So make sure as you imagine this future adult/child sex you are getting permission from the parents (as well as the child, of course).

Most of us are decent enough to leave the subject of "parental permission" out of the discourse. By pointing out this omission you lead the reader to believe the OP would rather not ask, suggesting he is predatory and his thoughts are coming from a place of subversion. Old trick.

Actually, I am in favor of pedophiles subverting parents in select circumstances. And you should be too if you like happy people.

But suggesting that the default is subversion is rather rude.

And if you really think it's that rare to be hit on by a kid as a pedophile, then I don't know what the fuck lol....

...I and many others hold an intermediate position where all of those side benefits are possible, but adult-child sexual activity is still forbidden. An end to shame around bodies and sex, an end to forbidding masturbation, an end to prohibiting sexual play among people of the same age, comprehensive sex education (but not the "lab course" version) -- I and lots of sex-positive people are in favor of those things. The child can even have special friendships with adults, who might be pedophiles, but no sexual activity is permitted.

But why. Give me a convincing reason, I dare you.

"Special friends" can tend to fall in love.

Why should they have to throw that away?

Another big difference between sex and swimming is that starting at puberty, sex is special. This is especially true of girls and women. They may strongly desire sex, but they usually care deeply about who their partners are.

Hohoho. I'd like a generous citation on that "starting at puberty" clause.

A very common story is the girl who has sex believing the man has made a long-term monogamous commitment to her, but she finds he hasn't -- and she finds this extremely painful emotionally.

It's not clear what this is meant to be a supporting example for. And I mean objectively not clear.

Sex before puberty is likely to be special too, and will be reinterpreted according to the perceived motives of their partners.

The inconsistencies are hurting my eyes now.

~ RBL