I'm going to do my best and respond to this essay as civil as I can while arguing from the other side of the fence. I've not read the entire story because it became too graphic and repulsive for me. I genuinely tried and am not about to go all verbally violent here, but I did stop reading when what I read made me too nauseous. I gave it a try. And I don't think the answer to the expression of thoughts and feelings alone should be violent: no person should be punished for having thoughts and feelings, even if they're like this. As long as a person doesn't act on them, they should be left free. It's just that asking for acceptance, and for me to be cool with the stuff being said, is too much to ask.

Admittedly I do wonder why the essayist is making himself sound so threatening to parents especially by talking about this in such great length and so graphically? Non-paedos have similar feelings to mine of being repulsed, or worse and do get violent from this stuff. At the same time other paedos already feel the same way I would wager so in that sense it's preaching to the choir. And what the author wrote is all about him and him alone, I'd say that's the root problem of the entire subject being talked about. To most of us it's not just about him. It's about children being able to grow up free from (sexual) infringement. The child's safety is what's paramount!

The problem I have with these essays and these types of paedophiles (i.e. those who say "I won't act on it, but I still have these feelings anyway") is that they argue for no one but themselves; they make it about them, want to be understood, portray themselves as victims first chance they get (QED in the article), and following that, they make the argument to "society as a whole."

They want to be accepted, for their sexuality to become regarded as normal. But it's not. It's not even normal to talk on and on about yourself and, at the same time, talk about others like they are objects in your own fantasies.

Asking to be accepted while at the same time wanting to be able to be sexually pleased by, and/or to sexually please, children, well as I see it this is psychopathy: they lack empathy, they lack the ability to understand why parents (and non-paedophiles too for that matter) are so protective to children.

To the pleading paedos it's all about them, ad infinitum, and "if we just gave them a chance they could prove that they are harmless." No you're not. Just knowing that you are fantasizing about my kid is doing a form of harm. Although no harm that should be acted upon: I think this line of reasoning does fully fall under freedom of speech / expression. (I am not from the USA, but we have a similar "freedom of expressing opinion" law here)

So, to quote something from the essay that already disgusted me was this: "I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography." So what? Are you saying that this making me sick makes me a monster? What are you trying to say? That I shouldn't worry?

You don't perceive yourself as a monster, and as long as you don't act on your feelings I might even agree that the word "monster" is too strong. But that does not change the fact that even as much as passively being sexually attracted to children makes you a threat. Being vocal about it activates parental instincts.

On one hand I think: if letting it out prevents you from acting on those feelings: good. On the other hand it makes me wonder if this implies that you will become a risk if you keep those thoughts to yourself. So, how well can you be trusted? Almost fully? That doesn't do it for me. Almost fully means not at all. If you talk about this online you probably have friends with similar feelings. Can they be trusted? Can a group of pedos be trusted? It's just not safe at all, slippery slope, risks I'm not willing to take, not even close.

So it does not matter if you have crossed the line or not. To me it's not even about you. To you it's about you. To me it's about keeping children away from the risks. So I am also aware that it's not your job to protect my children, it's my job to protect them from people who are a threat.

Normal parents simply will do everything they can (within bounds) to protect their kids from harm. It's a constant struggle, internally, for a parent to decide when to let a (young) child figure out something for him/herself and when not to: it's not good to be overprotective. Two years old and playing with a spoon? I'd say maybe, but only supervised and perhaps not even that. Playing with a knife? Absolutely not. And I'm not arguing to "get rid of all paedos" either. I won't blame you for how you feel as long as you don't act on it. In the same way, what I ask in return, is that you don't blame me for how I feel, as long as I don't attack you while you did not act out of bounds. Telling me that you do fantasize about my kid is crossing the line, but even in that case, words should not be the reason for me to get violent. I will however stay the hell away from you and not let you close to my kid or any other kid for that matter.

So: the pedo argues for himself and I argue for me and children who can't defend themselves yet. Non-paedos I'd say are usually hard wired to detect, stay clear of, and get rid of dangers to children. That's not a logical argument, it's a maternal/paternal instinct. It's already a struggle between these instincts and reasonably understand that the kid will someday probably accept just as much from his/her parents as we accepted from ours. But for most parents it's just too hard to capture this into words.

Paedophilia / hebephilia / ephebophilia is threatening to parents and children. People with such sexuality might not act dangerous. But to the parent the entire premise is not about the paedophile but about the parent and child. The maternal/paternal instinct is very strong and we will protect our children at all costs. No amount of reasoning can or should change that.