I'm not a child molester by the common definition or mine. I have had no sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, with anyone under the age of 18 since turning 18. The youngest person I've been intimate with was 13, and I was 13 at the time. If I have children, I hope they aren't as attracted to me as I am to my mother, because not giving them what they want would be painful. And necessary. Fortunately that situation is pretty unlikely. The mother-child bond does have an innately sexual element, but I don't think most kids are overtly attracted to their parents.

      No. Damaging a person sexually is probably one of the most evil things you can do to them short of murder. My definition of a child molester is a person who coerces a child into sexual acts the child would not otherwise seek. I have a special place on the heel of my boot for such a person. Of course, to society a child molester is anyone who has any kind of sexual contact with a person under the arbitrary age of consent.

     I don't recommend breaking the law (it's usually unwise even if it's not unethical), but neither will I participate in witch hunts to catch people who aren't evil and haven't harmed anyone. Not even when someone else tries to make me see their actions as harmful. I won't risk prosecution for another person (with few exceptions), so I tell people not to inform me if they're breaking the law. It's a situation I've not dealt with before, as I don't know anyone offline who's in such a situation and I'm not enough of a martyr to look for them.

     Some people "know" that homosexuality is wrong. Some people "know" that interracial relationships are wrong. And even people who disagree with homophobia or racism tend to be pretty lousy at explaining why they're unethical. Notice I say "unethical" as opposed to "wrong." Wrong is completely subjective. Ethics are not. There's logic to ethics. Let's try some here. Society does not have the right to oppose homosexuality or interracial dating, because external ethics only apply where one party's actions may violate the rights of another party. The person making the choice can't set their own standards because their actions directly affect the life of a person who isn't getting a say in those actions. In a consensual relationship, all parties who are affected have a say. So they can set their own standards. That's why society has no right to oppose homosexuality or interracial relationships or consensual incest. So no. I'm not doing anything wrong because both parties in my relationship are consenting (even by society's definition) and our consent overrides any other standards.

     Since I'm an adult now, my choice requires no justification at all. From the point of view of a person opposed to my relationship, it may be offensive to them but there is no ethical argument against it as it stands today. They can say it was unethical at one point, but now I'm an adult and only the standards set by my mother and myself apply. Many adults have many consensual relationships for many reasons, and none of them are subject to outside approval.

     Where does the assumption that it was unethical at one point come from? That assumption will become possible after it's shown that I could not have consented to everything we did. I have never been coerced (no, you were not there and you don't know that I was, so no arguing that). And the fact that the law says something is wrong has little to do with whether it actually is ('sodomy' laws, anyone? Jim Crow?). So let's look past the law, at reality. Here it is. My mother belongs to me and I belong to her. Regardless of what the law says or even whether our relationship was wrong when I was younger (which I know it was not), anyone who comes after her will have to go through me. Regardless of whether she was right or wrong, today she answers only to me. And I have the right to judge or forgive or thank her as I see fit. A prosecutor won't have much of a case against a "child molester" if the supposed "victim" was killed or arrested trying to protect her, or refuses to testify against her. I'll listen to rational disagreement. But I will not have my life or my loved ones taken out of my hands on someone else's say so.

     Take a look around this site. Disagree with me as you wish, there's no denying how seriously I take the subject. And all attention is not good. I prefer attention for the quality of my writing, or how good I am at back rubs, or how well I'm dressed. I have a life offline, and my friends and loved ones are all the attention I need. I don't need validation from people I don't know, or approval from idiots who should be kissing my ass. I'm able to do and say what I believe in, even where society disagrees, because I don't need a stranger's sanction to know I'm right.

     No. Sorry. Subjective opinions and gut reactions don't define ethics. Surely you're doing something that disgusts someone. Premarital sex? Oral? Homosexual relationship? Country music? They all disgust somebody. I hope you have the self-confidence to tell them they can stuff a cork in it. Like you, I am (even by your standards) entitled to decide what is right or wrong in my consenting relationships. And I have the right to repel any attempt at taking that choice out of my hands.

     Then your entire stance is one giant stolen concept fallacy. A stolen concept fallacy being the act of accepting a principle when it says what you want it to, and rejecting it when it says something you don't want it to. Of course, most people who hold this stance or that on an issue (even the more libertarian stances that I agree with) don't actually understand the logic or ethics that ultimately validate those stances. So here's a crash course in why you're right if you support gay rights. The ethics that make it wrong to interfere in consensual gay relationships or interracial relationships also make it wrong to hold people accountable for consensual incest. In all cases, the parties are consenting, and because they bear the results of their actions they can set their own standards and society is not entitled to override those standards. This as opposed to rape or other violence, where the person most affected does not have a say and hence their rights must be protected by society.

     Go fuck yourself with a straight razor. I'm obligated to feel nothing anyone else tells me to. Sentience means operating on what you see, and what you think, and what you want. At the very least it means thinking what you want to think. Ethics can only contradict that where it affects the lives of others. I'm not forcing anyone else to do anything, or to hold a certain opinion on their lives, because unlike you I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I know another person's life better than they know it. I don't answer to counselors, or to people who truly were victimized as a child, or anything of the sort. If one person has the right to say that what happened with them was wrong, then I have the right to say that what happened with me was right. If you do not believe the latter, then the former becomes impossible. The same thing that makes rape or real molestation wrong also gives me the right to say that neither happened to me. My body. My life. My choice. Try to take it from me and you become nothing but an obstacle for me to stumble over and kick out of the way. Just like any religious fundamentalist, or fascist, or anyone who thinks others answer to them for their ideas.

     If you really care so much about protecting kids, then by your own ethics it is wrong to attack me simply for refusing to see myself as a victim the way you want me to. Of course, you really aren't interested in protecting kids if you think that. You're more interested in protecting society's false image of them; asexual, incapable of wanting romantic affection even when they know they do. And you're willing to protect that false image even if it means attacking the real person you claim to care about. Even though if you lived anywhere but a cave when you were a kid, you had the same feelings you're now saying kids can't. Here's a clue, hypocritical dipshit. The image you're protecting doesn't exist. Kids with no sexuality don't exist. I do. Protecting children from truly being raped or molested is a good cause. But it is not license to force everyone who's been the child in such a relationship to see themselves as victims if they know otherwise.

     Good luck. There is no illegal content on this site. Neither ASSTR nor any site with which I am affiliated has identifying information about me. Nor would any US authority have legal standing to request that information if it existed. Nor could it be proven that anything on this site actually happened to me. Nor would I ever testify to that effect. Nor would many prosecutors have a chance against such expensive legal counsel as ours. Nor would anyone attempting to arrest my mom leave the premises in anything other than a body bag.