Your identity revolves around legalizing boysex?

Let's assume, in the alternative, that you actually read and understood the article, and the fact it was referencing cautious reforms in the general, and no position with respect to consent laws. Rather than again embarrassing yourself by simply failing to research a subject you are actively seeking to twist and misrepresent. This is a tough ask, I know. But bear with me. It must follow that your identity revolves around legalizing boysex. Or aspires exclusively to this in its legal outlook. This is your logic, not mine. You apparent grasp of "legal reforms" relating to the group Brian/Mu is referencing, goes no further than whether or not they are permitted to pursue sexual relations with minors. But hang on. Is it not possible, for example to push for reform of laws against artificially generated pornography, or abolition of sex offender registries, while not taking any position on consent laws? Because all of these things are subjects of "MAP [...] legal reform", right? Not just sex with boys. Ok. Maybe not so, if your identity revolves solely around legalizing boysex. Which is not something I'm looking to judge you for... I'm just saying, it could be a bit of a lost cause in your case.