I thought Rainbowloom's post http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/599196.htm was terrific. My sense on reading it was I agreed with it all -- except for the parts about needing to get it off his chest and the promise not to post it again. If he said it in a way that goes over better with people, then I'm delighted. I won't reply there to let it stand on its own.

Based on the points you are all making, I'm coming to think that my top-level post isn't actually helpful. At the moment I'm planning not to do it again (though no promises lol).

It's possible my message would be good for a lurker who happened to see it out of context, but for anyone who follows this board more closely there's a huge problem. I should have known it based on my readings in psychology like "Thinking Fast And Slow" by Daniel Kahneman (a terrific book). People (at least including those who have replied) can't separate the words in that post from all the other views I've expressed in other posts. They think I must not mean what I say. Silly me. The message would be much better if I created another identity and posted it under that -- but that's not my way of doing things. (For anyone who is into putting emotion aside, try reading my post again, only the words that are there, as if someone else had written them, and see if that makes it seem more benign.)

But there is a pair of trends that seem entirely contradictory in the responses.

One is that the objection to adult-child sex today is quite tenuous for some people.

Here's GaK: Frankly, I don't care much if someone from this board chooses to have sex with their lgf. It might not be universal, but many people at GC do believe that children are capable of consent. If this is true, then the consent to sex is also consent to secrecy and consent to risk. I refuse to condemn someone for taking the risk to his self and his lover

He doesn't imply that it is unlikely that such a person might be on GC somewhere. I think it's worth noting that that is an acceptable position by a respected member of the community. Hierophant seemed to suggest the same basic idea but didn't say it. Others hint at it.

The other is that people are incensed at the idea that I would think anyone here is on the verge of engaging in sexual activity with children. (I was once threatened with a rule violation of unfounded accusations for suggesting that a few unspecified members here might have crossed the line.) Some phrase it as "rape" which makes it seem like the horrible "them". But I'm not talking about "them", and Dante recognizes the continuity with

[Virped supports the erroneous Anti-pedo-compatible view] that we are but one vigilant thought away from rape, or that left to our own devices we will engage in cognitive distortions that rationalize adult-child sex in violation of the law.

Leave my views out of it entirely. GaK certainly seems to be accepting of what Dante says we would never have -- that it is offensive I would suggest we would ever have.