"There's a simpler explanation. Those exposed to an argument are more likely to evaluate it.

"It is a simpler explanation, but it is wrong.

Are we talking about some medicinal plant with remarkable properties that no one has heard of? A simple household device put to a new purpose that no one has heard of?

People are fully aware of teen sexuality, since they were all teens themselves once."

You're dead wrong, as per usual.

We can grant that everyone knows something about their own sexuality. But our society isolates children from others in the practice of sexuality and shames the open discussion of that.

The historical evidence suggests that the shift from rural to urban, and the rise of child protectionism have made shared sexual experiences even more uncommon than they used to be.

If understanding one's own sexuality meant understanding one's peers then the constant refrain of "am I a freak?," "is it just me?," wouldn't be so deafening.

I don't know about you. But while I had access to a lot of book learning when I was a kid, there were no "rap sessions" about fantasies, masturbation or anything else going on outside of health ed.

And, if what you were saying was remotely true about the accuracy of the convos which did exist, then the term "locker room banter" wouldn't be synonymous with misinformed BS.

There's no informed conversation happening offline.

"The reason there is no conversation is that they don't consider there to be any costs to their kids being unable to have sexual relationships with adults. "

RLY? You claim a reason for the contents of a conversation which doesn't exist? This time you're not projecting onto people you meet, or even hypothetical people you don't know about, but you're projecting motives for actions not undertaken at all. It seems you will speculate about others at the drop of a hat, even if they don't exist.

But if what you said were true, then it would be a part of that convo which isn't happening.

Again, I only can speak from my own experience ( because NOBODY was speaking from theirs. ) But I never heard any reasons for or against. The AoC was a given and that was that. It was lumped in with the category of "responsibilities you aren't ready for" because it was set to the age of majority. But "when you are an adult, you'll understand" was the extent of reasons which backed it up.

I found that when I was an adult there was no "special knowledge" and no reasons or arguments going on out of kids' earshot.

And your proposed argument "you aren't missing anything you would enjoy" was NEVER floated. In fact, you are the only person I've ever heard spout this one. And believe me, I've heard it said about booze and cigs that they were an acquired taste only adults could appreciate. But I never heard it said about sex.

( But then, most every kid I knew ended up trying booze or cigs at least once. Such was the power over even peer sex that only one bhoy in my immediate circle ever claimed to have lost his virginity within my hearing. [ That's what happens when you hang out with gaming geeks. ] )

"What is it they haven't been exposed to? The Rind study results? If they perceived this problem with children's unfulfilled sexual needs as one meriting any of their attention at all, they'd find the Rind study."

You have a lot of faith in Mr. & Mrs. Middle America's ability to find an academic article published in a scholarly journal. And that's not taking into account the attempt to discredit it by an act of congress.

Sorry, that's just not how RL works.

Conversations about religion are not peppered with references to St Anselm's Ontological Argument or the Epicurean Paradox. H*ll, most convos about God and Evil are carried on as if the Epicurean Paradox had not been around for longer than the religions being discussed.

And actually, the Atheism analogy is apt. Atheists aren't born with special knowledge. But the circumstances of being a minority under attack by the ignorant tend to make them very knowledgeable. And often I have found myself more familiar with apologetics than the believers.

There is no real convo about Atheism happening in churches. They discuss straw men or use Catechism as an opportunity to promote doctrinal points. But such is the self-evidence of faith that it has replaced the need for evidence; both against AND for. Which is the only reason why I am more familiar with their theology than they are. And know the arguments for in ways they don't.

You have been online too long if you believe that the basic arguments for an AoC you use here are actually being used there.

The convo isn't happening because the groupthink is so strong it seems self-evident; and therefore no thought in either direction is required.

H*ck, some come to GC who haven't traveled enough to realize that there are other AoCs possible. ( And some schmuck in RL is always getting arrested due to this ignorance. )

So, no. I don't expect familiarity with the literature from the public at large. But A discussion, ANY discussion might at least open it up.

Unfortunately you have to go here for even the arguments "for."

Dante