"Well parts of wise sociology is harm-reduction.

Say we have a person who is attracted to minors, and we construct the two opposing choices between 1) telling him that he is a monster and is going to offend sooner or later, and 2) telling him that he is a perv and lots of people are pervs and to stay clean off of minor-sex"

Neither of these is any harm reduction.

You explain why proposition nr 1 is wrong but what you should understand is that nr 2 is much, much worse.

- Calling somebody a "perv" would actually offend a sane person much more than the word "monster". A "perv" means... what? It sounds like a bunny dropping of a fifth rate mind.

-What do you care what lots of people are?

- Staying clean of minor sex is a horrible idea. First of all, bad/evil laws are there to be broken. And these laws are the epitome of evil so they should be broken, just like many German laws from WW2 should have been broken.

- The sole idea that somebody will abstain from sex due to laws in insane. It shows a fundamental misreading of human nature. You are like those idiots who tell incels to just "forget about women", while forgetting themselves that no incel would exist if their forefathers had "forgotten about women". A good advice to pedos should be- offend, offend, offend, as much as you can ! It is no offense at all. Of course one needs to worry about his safety as well as cops and many brainwashed civilians really enforce and believe in these laws but no sane human being will give up on sex due to laws. Horrible, abominable laws in that.

- You also forget the very important and ever present racial issue here. Most people who believe in these laws would also like to enforce laws in which you'd be hunted down and killed just for being white. They are dangerous, insane and shouldn't be listened to.