Nobody with a brain in their skull when you explain the difference between attraction and behavior still believes that everyone with an attraction harms kids. People aren’t that stupid. What they believe about people with that attraction is another story.
Such a platform wouldn’t have meaning if a common definition for “CSA” is not established, one that acknowledges adult-child sexual activity as a form of abuse with inherent harm.
Such views, in and of themselves, can be easily defined as a “proclivity to offend” despite the risk of doing so being relatively low compared to those who lack a primary sexual interest in children, in the sense that they’d be “open” to it, should it be allowed.
Pro-contact idealism really is a regressive, selfish, and detrimental worldview to have, and it only emboldens and validates the prejudices of those who would rather suppress/harm others using child safety as their license to do so.
I am strictly anti-contact, but I have my doubts that this would be an effective policy. Putting myself in that position I don’t think that I would be open to therapy if I had to give up one of my core beliefs in order to even qualify, and it would probably just make me believe in that even more strongly (I’m stubborn like that…). There is also some evidence to suggest that people who are forced to give up their pro-contact stance are more likely to develop psychological problems, which makes setting this as the prime therapeutic goal ethically questionable at least.
I read somewhere a proposal for a different approach: being respectful and accepting while trying to find a common ground. For instance, many people who believe that sex between adults and children is not inherently harmful still abide by the law because they realize that in the current society the chance of harm to themselves and the children through persecution is too high. I feel that this is a more promising therapeutic approach - after all who cares what they believe might be hypothetically possible in some distant utopia, as long as they don’t harm anyone in this actual reality?
I’ll see if I can find it again. From what I remember it was not the main focus of the research, but rather something they found along the way.
Personally, I don’t find that too hard to believe. In my experience, many pro-contacters have made their pro-contact believs a central part of their identity.
As a pedophile there are basically two ways out of shame, self-hate and feeling like a horrible monster: either realizing that attraction is not action and that just being attracted to something that would be horrible to act on does not make you a bad person if you don’t act on it - or telling yourself that the attraction would not be harmful even if acted on. I find it plausible that it could have a negative psychological impact on someone who chose the latter way when they are forced to give up these believes.
It’s a delicate matter that should receive more research imo, because if that’s true than it could possibly be that trying to get people to give up their pro-contact beliefs could increase their likelihood for abuse by psychologically destabilizing them, and the idea of finding a compromise that most of all involves not abusing children might be a more fruitful approach.