>>19819

Thank you for your answer, but I'm afraid it is incomplete. You referred to visible attractive attributes of any kind. Skinny or fat and curvy or thin (which is the same, only in other words) fall within this category, that's for sure. But they aren't "all kinds". There are also size, skin condition, proportions and haircolor ‒ to name only a few more. Kids have the same haircolors as grownups, can be skinny or curvy and have mostly flawless skin ‒ and a lot more of other visible attributes that can attract someone.
So even if I accept your very blurry drawn line, you did not tell me the most important "Why". Up to now you're giving us just an example of bigotry at its best. It's the same like censoring genitals at a bloody slasher picture ‒ only multiple times worse.

​

>>19821

When I started to read your post I thought at the first moment: "Oh no, another pharisee." But then you gave me a good laugh and I want to thank you for this. :D

​

>>19834

> they should throw their life away on the altar of your disgust
But only as long as you don't have any "visible attractive attributes of any kind" which would identify you as a kid. ;)=)

Are there any kids around here? Don't be shy. Come to me. Let's play a little bit ‒ may be chef and piglet. 8)

​

>>19842

> pedophilia itself is an WHO recognized disorder
Sorry, but that's bull... ‒ sorry ‒ nonsense. You're right, it is recognized as disorder, but this classification is bull... ‒ err ‒ only a fig leaf. Would you say homosexuality is a mental disorder?
Remember:
< The World Health Organization's ICD-9 (1977) listed homosexuality as a mental illness; it was removed from the ICD-10, endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly on 17 May 1990. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) [ICD: International Classification of Diseases]
Its "career" as disorder began in the late 19th century with the scientific study of homosexuality by Richard von Krafft-Ebing.
< Krafft-Ebing was a leading psychiatrist of his day and his research initially positioned same sex attracted men and women as hereditarily burdened but not responsible for their innate "reversal" of sexual drive. Throughout his career, he supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality believing that homosexuals would be best served by medical treatment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Krafft-Ebing)
Though Krafft-Ebing was wrong from todays point of view, he was helpful at his time.
Unfortunately every scientist who published and publishes a non-negative work about pedophilia faces immediate stoning. Nevertheless there are researches stating that pedophilia is not generally as harmful as we are told and that the in most cases the highly embarrassing interrogations do the most harm, more than everything else. Until anything changes it's a doubtful option to hide behind that fig leaf.

Having said this, I think we really need a Sidney Roebuck. As a followup of her successful campaign there would be some more liberations of other kinds. :)=)