Look, Dissy, I said right in my post that I don't agree with everything the (American) government has done and is doing with respect to MAPs and even sex offenders, and that has never changed regardless of my position on the contact issue. I am not an ideologue. I do not favor things just because my party of choice favors it or society favors it. I think the government's treatment of us is pretty damned shabby in some respects, though you know as well as I do that a lot of what we get from them is simply a reflection of society's feelings towards us, so to blame one is to blame the other. I just get fucking sick of all the conspiracy theories and dystopian bullshit that so many here espouse, especially when they aren't willing to do anything about it except endlessly gripe from behind their anonymous GC nicks.

Fair enough. But as I noted, though I do not agree with conspiracy theorists, it's not a conspiracy to say that the U.S. government is responsible for a good many oppressive laws and campaigns against us as part of their larger and very public agenda to suppress nearly any conceivable aspect of youth sexual expression and activity, as well as independence in general. Yes, the government's attitudes towards us does largely reflect society's views, but the government has done absolutely zero to correct the problem intelligently, and has done much to instigate public attitudes towards us. Having a "bogeyman figure" benefits the government on many levels, because such shadowy menaces provide the impetus for increasing police powers and governmental surveillance on society, while terrifying the citizenry into supporting such measures as "necessary evils." This is why the "pedophiles" and "terrorists" of today were preceded by the "homosexuals" and "communists" of decades past.

All right, I'll say this to you, Markie: The anti-choice camp, along with the many government agencies, MHPs, the mass media, and academics who seek to suppress any type of objective study into child sexuality in general are major hypocrites for espousing concern for victims of war crimes.

I don't buy that. These are very different realms and people are bound to have different opinions and feelings about them.

And I don't buy that, Markie, because the very matter I pointed out was all realms that negatively impact children (and, by extension, young adolescents). Yet the moralizing agenda behind the suppression of youth sexuality by each of the agencies and institutions I mentioned takes precedence over the reporting and opposition of any of the constant destructive attacks on other countries that harm children far more demonstrably than typical sexual abuse, let along consensual sexual activity and/or expression.

So those who purport to care about the safety of kids should be expected to harbor different opinions about sexuality and the effects of warfare? It seems to me that such individuals are more concerned with maintaining morals and customs than they are with the genuine, objective safety of underagers, especially when you consider that children blown up by land mines or cluster bombs in foreign countries do not weaken the cultural and political fiber of the status quo in the Western nations. Their sexual freedom and expression, as well as their freedom in general, does affect the comfy gerontocentric status quo, however.

I don't think they're lying about their sympathies for victims of war crimes. I know I'm not.

But look what takes precedence in the media and by the government. Look where the expressed concerns disproportionally lie with nearly all of these agencies and institutions mentioned. The evidence strongly suggest very lop-sided priorities, especially when you see that many of these agencies and institutions often act as unabashed cheerleaders for the government when it goes to war. They do generally express regret when children are harmed by the U.S. military in their constant assaults on nations in the Middle East, but these matters are extremely under-reported and downplayed in comparison to instances of CSA (both real and manufactured); and many representatives of such agencies and institutions will routinely rationalize the demonstrably devastating effects of war on children as "an unfortunate but necessary evil to fight the terrorists" (whomever the latter may be at any given time).

So yes, they may indeed feel genuine sympathy for victims of war crimes, but such concerns do not take precedence over moralizing concerns and sentiments, or any possible "threat" to the status quo.

Furthermore, your insinuation that these people "gladly look the other way" when it comes to kids' right is ridiculous because I'm fairly certain most anti-contacters just do not view the issue through the same filter that you do, so your position is really a straw man here: you're ascribing motivations to them that likely do not exist and attacking them for it.

I'm calling it like I see it, and as the evidence suggests, plain and simple. I cannot read the minds of any of these people, granted, but their actions do strongly suggest where their priorities lie. Defense of the prevailing status quo and its dominant paradigms strongly appears to be their main concern.

If you honestly believe that anti-contacters think kids really deserve majority rights but are actively working against that to oppress kids, then all I can say is that you have been reading too many comics or something.

No, I believe they do not want kids to have majority rights regardless of what any of their individual merits may or may not be, because that would tamper with the prevailing status quo and its sacrosanct paradigms far too much. Plain and simple. Granting most adults their majority rights regardless of what their individual merits may or may not be, however, does not violate the prevailing status quo or its sacrosanct paradigms.

That's a simplistic us vs. them mentality, and that is a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias">NOT what's going on.

Conflicting ideologies with diametrically opposed agendas do exist. That's not an "us against them" mentality, but a reality of politics and sociology. Do you believe that Neo-Nazis and progressives could work together if they simply recognized each others' arbitrary commonalities?

I am certain that most anti-contacters, including me, feel that children must be protected not only from others but also themselves to some extent.

This is not in conflict with my point. Rather, it's totally my point... which is that democratic rights of citizens should be applied to everyone, and not limited on any arbitrary basis. And that past examples of passing legislation to protect anyone from themselves has always been a disaster, including every time justifications were made for it on the basis that "Group A" is different from "Group B." Anti-choicers know this, but do not care, because their agenda is, simply, to maintain the status quo of geronto dominance and privilege, and forcing kids to adhere to the paradigms cultural sentiment has them personify and represent. Any adult who is pro-choice are considered mavericks who refuse to support the prevailing status quo, and MAPs are considered to be inherently predisposed mavericks.

I am not an absolutist on this and never have been; I do support a lot more rights for kids than what they currently have, including a system similar to what Epstein proposes. I just think you guys go way too far with it.

Proposing a system by which those who can prove their merits be treated accordingly in regards to rights and freedoms regardless of any arbitrary factors is certainly not going "way too far." Nor is insisting that kids have access to the information and opportunities that will enable them to prove their merits in a fair and responsible matter, without any dirty pool agendas obstructing them. Yet I consistently see anti-choicers refusing any and all compromise, while accusing pro-choicers who agree to this compromise as being the camp who refuses to compromise. This is because the presence of a fair and reasonable Epstein-Dumas Test would enable many youths to circumvent their cultural and legal "place" in society and establish a voice and political power within all these institutions and agencies, thus disrupting the geronto-dominant status quo and violating many sacred paradigms.