Going to be perfectly honest here.

I am quite bothered by your attitude (towards me?). I find it both bothersome and worrisome, as well as troubling. Now I am certainly an anxious person, with my own issues, and possibly OCD. But it's getting to the point that I'm thinking of ignoring you entirely and maybe not even reading your posts. You seem to be extraordinarily critical of me, and I'm not sure I've noticed you being like that to other people. So I'm taking this personally, and soon I may not let myself be bothered by you anymore. After all, you also avoid giving me any explanation, or trying to discuss and solve what the issue is between you and I.

You can talk all you want about accepting and understanding other cultures. In this case, it really doesn't matter to me. Isn't it you and everyone else here (including me?) who cry (rightfully so) about the dangers of sexual repression? So I fail to see the correlation in what you're saying, compared to the reality.

I also fail to see how/why I didn't accept the answers that were given to me regarding this topic. I was merely intending to add onto them, and explain them. But no, I don't believe that religious conservativeness automatically equates to sexual repression especially regarding pedophilia (in some instances/BL excluded, obviously). History strongly suggest that diddling little girls was accepted during, before, and somewhat after antiquity... or even in recent United States history. I have even posted information regarding a propaganda film that was made back then to combat this very problem, which was legally accepted. No, the fact that child marriage was allowed doesn't prove it to be just. We don't have to ignore historical examples of child marriage just because it will make us "look bad". It merely shows that there's a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. We shouldn't accept a man's right to forcefully marry a little girl, rape her, and beat her... but that doesn't mean we have to disown the right of a little girl to get married if she chooses. We, as a species, merely have to understand and support the rights and well-being of one another. I think it's clear that the reasons why child marriage (and thus, diddling of little girls) was weeded out was for reasons other than religion - after all, child marriage was accepted for so long by so many religions. I'm not sure exactly what the reason was for eventually banning it, whether you want to blame feminism, shady psychologists, male pigs, etc. However, I do agree that religion is generally bad in that it is sexually oppressive, and overly restrictive. None the less, there were instances where it accepted the odd forms of pedophilia.

You can accuse me of being obsessed with child marriage, but that's not really the case. However, if it suddenly became legal to have sex with little girls if you married them, how many of us do you think would be rushing to the altar ASAP? Thus, I do find the topic interesting, especially since child marriages are still accepted in some parts of the world today, and even in some U.S. states you can have sex with a young-ish girl sooner if you marry her first. I hope it's not the case, but if we look at history, or even modern times, it would appear that child marriage may be the only solution for Girl Lovers, or horny little princesses. Given how much of the West is still run by religious kooks, which do you think would be more likely? Consensual child/adult sex in general becoming totally legal, or marriage between an adult and a child of opposite genders becoming legal?

I'm not sure if you have some kind of love for the Amish, and in that case.... I'm not really against them. I actually really admire their way of life, and in the right conditions, if things had gone differently, I would have wanted that way of life. What I do not respect, or admire, is their religion, or their lack of respect and support for child sexuality. And heh, while we're at it, they don't support homosexuality, either, do they? I can't respect that, either. I won't respect something which condemns humanity like that, nor if they follow an idiotic, silly religion that doesn't make any sense. But I do think Amish + sexual freedom + no religion would = awesome.

You keep talking about this "Laws of Lek"... I really don't know what that is, and forgive me please, I don't care to look it up. I don't see what me endorsing Lek or not endorsing it has to do with anything. It's irrelevant to me, and it would be more relevant to ask why don't I endorse Christianity, Islam, democracy, communism, etc? In general, I'll be perfectly honest once again, I find some of your comparisons and words very abstract and confusing, though maybe that's the point.

"But you don't share their culture. Why should you expect them to share yours?"

Is pedophilia my culture? Perhaps. But I won't respect someone who doesn't respect me, my happiness, and that of those I love, or even the rights of others that have nothing to do with me.

"Asking questions of others is fine when you don't know. But don't be so dismissive of the answers you get when they don't confirm a thesis made in the absence of the information you solicited."

As for your original reply, I'm sorry but I don't see what it had to do with answering my question about the Amish, if you're implying that I was getting upset with you for that reason. You did mention "onsidering that the Amish have come under fire for refusal to assimilate ( particularly on the issue of military service, ) it would be known if they allowed child marriage. ( They don't. )", but I had no problem with that specific bit of information, and I do agree with you there.

Sorry if I'm overreacting or being paranoid.