Even if most men are decent people, we have reason to worry about the exceptions that have a big negative effect on us overall.

We do have to worry about the exceptions, yes. And that's why there's a criminal justice system.

It's a seriously flawed system in some ways.

I'll draw attention to a point I made previously in our exchange:

It's not against the law to leave your front door unlocked.

Wherever we harshly limit the freedom of the peaceable population in the name of protecting them from the scarce few who commit serious crimes (in the case of man-girl sexual interaction, an even scarcer few committing heinous crimes), we run into problems.

721740.

Another point frequently used by pro-legalization folk in their argument is that the notion of a hard "age of consent" as it stands now - a barrier between the underage/adult populations engaging in any kind of fraternization - was actually something that came into play for a complicated mix of reasons over time, none of which have anything much to do with the moral attack on pedophilia. And most of which have nothing to do at all with providing young girls with an indisputable defense for rape.

Unfortunately, the nature of that type of legislation is Draconian because of its catch-all effect and because the corresponding penalties are much too severe to the point of ridiculousness in some cases - something I think you recognize.

When pedos push for a lowered age of consent, the abolition of the age of consent, or an age of consent alternative... they are not doing so from a place of wanting to take advantage of young kids for sexual pleasure. That's where the stereotype (directly caused by the moral panic) comes in and prevents that lobbying - unjustly.

Contrariwise, those pedos are lobbying for the right to (peaceably) engage in courtship and eventual mating behavior with those who fall into their attraction base.

The continued refusal of society to allow this - based on, of course, the moral panic and the anti-contact stereotype-derivative view - allows for the continued production of pedos who sadly do fit that stereotype.

In other words, the fact that everyone wants to kill pedophiles is the main problem - not some hyperbole-fueled side-effect.

I respect that there are many pedophiles who have "missed the bus" so-to-speak who aren't going to benefit from pro-legalization much if it all. It makes sense for those pedos to engage with the public as "people who see children pretty much as they do".

But there are, today, several generations of pedophiles who are still attractive to girls they find attractive.

(And that's just looking at first-world nations. The third world is just a whole nother puzzle.)

Where I take issue is when you (albeit indirectly) associate those gentle, well-meaning pedos who refuse to muzzle themselves with the exceptional few psychopaths or previously-well-meaning-but-ultimately-dissociated pedos who really do pose any sort of threat to young girls.

When you paint a dichotomy of pedophiles who don't want to abuse girls vs pedos who do, you are accelerating the genocide of the larger pedophile population by propagandizing the notion of pedophiles as basically mentally unstable.

That is the new stereotype - one that I still do not take kindly to, and actually one that I personally consider to be worse because it's more difficult to prove against. Especially since the social isolation faced by people with pedophilic sexual orientations does inevitably lead to various forms of mental illness - just none that are inherent to those orientations, strictly speaking.

The reality is we just have certain fixed physical and psychological preferences in our partners, same as anyone else does.

Like I said, I do respect the position you now take that allows for teleiophiles to sort this out case-by-case, based on the individual relationships in question. I respect it because I ask no more - no less - from my loved ones when it comes to my relationships with girls. And they do this for me out of respect for the person I am, in line with their conclusion that trusting me with children any less than they would have before they knew about my orientation translates to the deepest of insults.

But until their way of handling it is the default instead of the notable exception, we are still going to have a big problem.

To say that prosecutors should show significantly more discretion is still a powerful statement and would be, from my point of view, a significant step in the right direction from where we are now. Granted.

But to then say that today's "age of consent" - as it is typically understood by any party to whom it's actually relevant - resembles anything that would be remotely acceptable in a culture that is to be fundamentally okay with pedophilia existing? That confounds me.

The age of consent - backed by the moral hysteria it is (now) inextricably tied with - stands as a deterrent not to rapists but to the rest of us. And it will continue to be effective for a great many as a deterrent as long as it stands until we have finally arrived at genocide.

My message for several years now has been that young girls fall in love too - often with older guys and sometimes older guys who are also into younger girls. It is real to them and it has meaning and value.

So let love happen.

If we keep segregating the youth population from the pedophile population and criminalizing and demonizing the pedos, we will keep seeing more of the same. As far as personal life details go: when a relationship gets abandoned (by the girl, not the pedo) simply because there's no way for it possibly go anywhere... and all along you've been a standup guy who really cares about her... and then she ends up making poor decisions with someone her own age who cares about nothing but what goes on in between her legs... It hurts.

And it will keep hurting (and keep creating more monsters) until we reach a change in perspective that allows for a happy ending.

~ RBL