Someone spare me the drama!

i think it's artificial to pretend that maa's are somehow significantly constituted of these two groups, 'pro' and 'anti' 'choice'. i also think there are more important things to occupy our attention. unlike Iron Marxist, i'm more focused on maa's as a disadvantaged minority than i am on maa's a a group cruelly and arbitrarily deprived of the right to seduce children.

Don't you think you are being overly dramatic and overly emotional here, kea? I have no idea what you think of when you hear or read the word "seduction," but I am willing to bet it has absolutely nothing in common what the meaning of the word that I and others here were describing. Nothing in the definition I used in any way resembled doing something that the child didn't actually want; quite the contrary, in fact! I do not in any way believe it's even possible to "seduce" a child or teen who has no interest of that sort in the adult in question. So I have no idea what you are thinking when you see that word, but it sounds like it is far removed from the definition that I and others came up for with it. I think that word has a negative connotation in the minds of certain people, but such people seem to have a tough time defining the word. I would like to know how "seduction" as I defined the word goes against the best interests of the younger person.

And to say you think it's "artificial" to suggest that MAAs are significantly constituted of pro- and anti-choice is a sign of nothing less than either total denial of obvious facts or willful ignorance for political reasons. I am not saying that everyone in either group make up the entirety of the MAA community, as there are agnostics like yourself (as just one alternate example), and there are some variations in each group, but to say they don't exist at all? That is just ridiculous.

saying i'm not interested in seeking change on behalf of maa's because i disagree with some ostensible 'majority' of same on the question of seducing children is as silly as saying that this question itself is somehow important to us.

Once again, overly dramatic. Please explain what your personal definition of "seduction" is, because it's certainly not the word I was defining. Now you can understand why I said in my initial post on the subject why so many anti-contact (and agnostics, too) are so hesitant to define the word when asked. So I had to strive to define the word myself and try to determine why so many people believe the possibility of a young person being "seduced" by an older person is so horrible that it justifies the continuation of the AoC laws as we know them today. The comparison you previously made to "seduction" being comparable to stealing candy from a baby was just plain silly and overly emotionalistic. And saying the question is not important to us is supremely silly, because the criminalizataion of "seduction" when it in no way causes harm or violates the important principle of consent is highly totalitarian, and I think it's a good thing that the majority of us do not want to live in a society governed by draconianism.

and i don't agree that this question of seduction has anything to do with the broader one of young peoples sexual rights. i'd like to see greater sexual freedom, sure, but not art the expense of greater acceptance of sexual exploitation.

*groan* Okay, that was a total eye-roller, kea. Will you please try to control your emotionalism and explain why "seduction" is a form of sexual exploitation? And can you please tell me if I should be upset that my girlfriend told me that she wants to "seduce" me in the future? I had no idea that she was exploiting me! Have you ever considered that if someone has a genuine romantic interest in someone else, they may find the prospect of a "seduction" flattering? Again, I have no idea what the hell you are thinking of when you see that word mentioned.