Not misunderstood, just wrong

A few days ago Peter posted this, which led to Labrat posting this, the comments of which gave me a couple of bad nights. Go ahead, read. I can wait. I was getting through it when I saw this article in which they said:

The complaint goes on to state that the girl said she had been sexually active with Matthew Bouchard in the presence of his wife, the newspaper reports.

The overall tone of the article implies that the child thought she was consenting. Then I saw this article (italics mine):

B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville. According to the group, which said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged.

Speakers also argued that people who are sexually attracted to children should have input into the decision about how pedophilia is defined in the DSM, which they said is supposed to be a guide to promote “mental health vs. social control.”

No, and no, and no again. People who are sexually attracted to children do not get to define their own crime. As well demonstrated by the monster who commented on Labrat's post, they do not understand the impact.

I can tell you that a 10 or 12 or 14 year old does not understand consent and will be adversely affected every day for the rest of their lives. I can tell you that not through reading or research, but because I know.

And that is not something I have ever admitted to anyone before and I don't want to talk about it.

But pedophilia must not be decriminalized or normalized or accepted in any way. Society must draw a line somewhere and tolerating pedophiles needs to be beyond it.