Please allow me to ramble for a moment. Multiple things are on my mind and I am taking a break from working/studying. I also don't want to make multiple posts so I am going to be talking about multiple things in this one post.

First the Santa Claus lie.

I really hate lying to kids about Santa Claus. I hate going along with it. My problems with it are multiple. It is blending fantasy and reality for kids. Giving them unrealistic expectations and having them believe ridiculous things. It's a straight up lie as well. I know even paedosexuals may disagree with me on this. I feel it is demeaning. The child is a human and wants to understand the world around her/him but the adults are just content making things up because it is "cute" or "adorable". Insisting that children should have "magic" in their lives when that "magic" usually just amounts to manipulation on the part of the parent anyway. The child will be just as excited every Christmas morning whether they believe in the jolly red guy or not. When I see a little kid talking about Santa I feel bad for them. It's so demeaning and insulting to the kid's intelligence.

This one is for Markaba and Ethan (if you guys read this).

I am wondering. Based on your arguments I feel the consent from guardians model would fit well into your belief systems. Yet every time I bring it up it is ignored or maybe accidentally looked over. You seem to agree harm is largely sociogenic or iatrogenic however you also claim that even if that were not the case, potential for abuse because of power imbalances and possible later regret make it too risky to allow. So why not allow it only when parental consent is given? It removes the power imbalance because the guardians can assure everything is fine and it removes the future regret problem for the most part because parents that allow their children to consent to sexual contact will be raising their children sexually open thus future regret would not rear it's ugly head. What is your argument for that to be illegal as well?

Time to toot my own horn.

I am always anonymously debating on other sites. I do not intend on just sitting in an echo chamber. I am always paying attention to any research. I am incredibly confident in my views, however if new research comes up I want to read it to make sure my views are not too illogical or irrational. I am very proud in my debating ability on other sites. I am amazed at how I have debated people who tried their best to remain logical and rational only to go down to basically admitting they have problems with adult/child sexual encounters because of their own moral systems and they are happy that society is on their side. Most of the times they are not so blunt, but when they start stating things that are clearly opinion as fact it makes me chuckle. I backed one guy into a corner, and he started saying children can never consent to any sexual contact and that sexual contact amongst children themselves was harmful more so than beneficial. I stated how that isn't even the popularly held opinion anymore and that most sex researchers and child psychologists will say child sexual exploration was very healthy and fine. He then claimed that sex between adults and kids is always harmful and should always remain illegal, without providing any evidence of course because he continually claimed children can't consent and thus it was always rape and force, so no studies needed to be done that accounted for consent. Of course this happiness brings sadness. To see how ridiculous and aggressive people can be when their core beliefs are questioned.

On to child and parental freedom.

I posted here before about two people on Reddit I convinced with my guardian consent model for allowing children and adults to partake in consensual sexual activity. When people argue against this model, they are arguing for state oppression (except for those like Dissident who take it logically further and argue parents shouldn't be exercising such control over their kids). If one advocates for freedom, they must accept this argument. The child should be free to make such decisions because it is their body and their desires and no harm comes from it. The parents deserve the freedom to allow their child to explore while they make sure the child is safe and not being taken advantage of. The paedosexual then has the freedom to engage sexually with a willing and sexual child. Freedom. I noticed that people who support freedom generally agree with me when I describe the guardian consent model. It also helps bolster my confidence in my views because these are non-paedosexuals like myself agreeing. Not just paedosexuals.

Children as research participants.

I read this on here (or was it BoyChat) mentioned by Entelechy I think (sorry if I spelled your name wrong) and it reminded me of it. It perfectly describes a system that allows the child to consent and the parents would be able to legally verify it. Research is complicated, and in most cases more complicated than a sexual interaction. The child will likely be unable to understand all facets of the research and even the research itself and the testing methods etc. Yet, the child is allowed to partake if they consent and their parents allow their consent. Now with sexual contact what the hell needs to understanding? This feels good, that feels good, I don't like that, he likes that, she says that feels good, this is fun, this isn't fun. The only thing the child may not understand is if the adult is being deceptive and not letting it be known what they are doing something for. If the adult is open and honest sexual contact is easily understandable for kids. So I just don't see how anyone can argue against allowing it under the rules of allowing children to participate in research.

And that's it. Thanks for allowing me this soapbox.