Funny how a lot of us are managing just fine to have an interesting discussion with him, including the part where he said that he DOESN’T want to have sex with anyone who can’t consent (as defined by a psych exam, and not a legal bright line) and he’ll live with it if it turns out that there are no people he’s attracted to who can pass a test proving their ability to consent.
And he’s not arguing that “he should be allowed to molest children”, he’s arguing that the state should redefine the law to potentially allow younger people to prove they’re in possession of adult decision-making and reasoning skills. There’s nothing wrong with what he’s actually advocating in this regard, unless you believe that 100% of people are unable to make said decisions until 18 AND you believe that some portion of people could fraudulently pass the test anyway.
Having actually read his proposal, it’s probably a pipe dream for him as I doubt anyone under 14ish could pass it, and I probably couldn’t have passed it at 20.
Regardless, I don’t understand how you COULDN’T find it fascinating. It’s something like having a real-life Hannibal Lecter to talk to (obviously the crimes are not comparable)–this is a person who can have a discussion and follow a train of logic, etc, but their base desires, taboos, and thought processes are very different from what’s the norm.