If you don't mean to be antagonistic, why not at least consider (this is nothing more than a simple request) taking a chill pill over the matter like BB, Gimmy, and few others are taking, rather than considering it yet another thing to bitterly rail against with the passion of a gay rights activist at Stonewall. Let's take it from the top (I'll try to be brief in my responses, but no promises):

Ah, let's see. I believe I said the same thing with regards to children standing up for their sexual rights, only to be told they are incapable of doing so because . . . they have no rights (circular reasoning). Why are you putting the burden on them to reject your term?

Why do you continuously put the burden on them to stand up and do everything for themselves in the current political climate when you know very well that no oppressed minority group in the past, including those with more civil rights than underagers now have, were able to do so without help from a portion of the group of people who were then part of the 'majority,' and thus had access to the political faculties that the minority group then lacked? I guess had you lived back in the pre-Civil War days, you would have assumed the vast majority of black people had no problem with being chattel slaves, or with not being allowed to learn to read and write, because you didn't see hordes of them walking around the various plantations with protest signs (with evocative symbols of protest on them, since most of them didn't know how to read or write).

I know you believe kids are chomping at the bit to be able to have sex with adults,

Mmm-hmmm, you think the importance of granting freedom of choice is tantamount to saying that kids want to form lines at the houses of MAPs for sex. And you continue to think that if it turned out that only a small number of them had this desire, then it would justify keeping laws against this type of choice intact. Well, since gay people make up only 10% of the population (according to many statistics), then what is the harm of keeping homosexual behavior against the law? After all, it's not like I have a line of men outside my door clamoring to have sex with me! I try to have a measure of respect for you, Markie, but you continue to grasp at the most foolish straws imaginable to justify circumventing the basic principles of democracy simply because you don't personally like certain of those rights that we insist be granted, and your above statement created the ultimate straw man if I ever saw one. At least that provides strong evidence that you continue to dislike those who advocate for freedom of choice, and you continue to argue that it's all about sex, and nothing more. You continuously insult your own community, and then you whine and cry foul when members of the community tell you how sick of it they are to see you constantly project your self-hatred over your attraction base and self-righteous attitudes you design to make you feel more "moral" about yourself onto the rest of your own community.

and intelligent and mature enough to deserve the full spectrum of rights adults have, but also evidently too stupid and immature to liberate themselves.

More dirty pool, and since you are attacking me on the basis of so many unrelated issues, this proves that you are as vindictive and carry grudges over disagreements, not to mention resentments, at least as much as you have ever accused anyone else of doing against you.

You say that I said kids are "too stupid" and "too immature" to liberate themselves? See, now you are playing "dumb" to justify your moralizing stances and support of the status quo (you know, to clean up your "image" in the eyes of the greater society you want the approval of so badly), when you know damn well that no oppressed group were ever able to entirely liberate themselves without the help of people who were part of the 'majority' and were able to exercise their full civil rights. I guess blacks, women, and homosexuals were too "stupid" and "immature" to liberate themselves with the help of the abolitionists, and the civil rights activists outside of their respective community during the 1960s.

This whole attack of yours is based on a vindictive resentment towards yourself coupled with the manner in which you enjoy taking it out on the whole community via projecting your own fears onto the rest of us, and by interpreting every thing we say in favor of choice as simply wanting to have sexual access to kids, and a believe that some of them would take that choice as a belief on our parts that millions of kids are "clamoring" for it. You misread and mis-interpret at will, and you hypocritically accuse others in the community who do not have the type of self-hatred and reverence for the status quo paradigms of creating straw men when they defend themselves from your attacks. It's nice to see that the old Markie never goes away, he just puts a mask on himself from time to time.

At any rate, I can agree with you that kids should be allowed to test out of minority status; the mechanisms should be in place for those kids who have both the desire and the ability to do so. But we've been over that before. What I don't agree with is us imposing our own labels and descriptors onto them. That has nothing at all to do with youth liberation. Nothing.

It has nothing to do with "imposing" anything on them, because EVERYONE in EVERY community are free to choose to use or NOT use the word as they please. I have tried to explain this to you, and Baldur has tried to explain this to you, and we have both listened to and responded to your concerns politely, yet you continue to ignore this and react with extreme antagonism to both of us.

And FYI, it has everything to do with liberation to offer an identifying label so they no longer feel alone, and realize many others have that preference. The fact that I politely and respectfully acknowledged and accommodated all of your concerns means absolutely nothing to you, and you continue to react antagonistically while claiming otherwise. And it's all because you are a bitter little emotionally disturbed person who loves nothing more than finding new excuses to lash out at the people who understand your situation, care about you, and offer their shoulders to you the most in this world, and even when they very clearly DO listen to you respectfully and show consideration for your concerns, as I did. I try to show you special consideration at times because I know how messed up in the head you are, but I am never going to treat you like that gives you license to be a jerk, because these constant fights you start with your accusations based on your deliberate misreading and twisting of the words of people who harbor an ideology you dislike becomes unforgivable at times. The more people pat you on the back when you act like this out of deference for your mental problems, the more they give you the message that they approve of this type of behavior, and they then wonder why this board has so many drama queens who lash out at everyone here. Guess who serves as their inspiration to act that way?

Was there any reason you couldn't discuss this matter respectfully, like I tried to? Was this particular subject really worth fighting tooth and nail over? Did you really have to prove me right in my prediction, just like I have little doubt at this point I will be proven right that you are going to look foolish over fighting so harshly over this matter in a few years from now?

Please don't try to sell me some bogus argument about how it is a term of empowerment, because you and I both know it isn't.

No, Markie, I don't "know" that, and neither do you. You continuously accuse people whose ideology you dislike of having all of these sinister, selfish reasons. So allow me to take off the kid gloves with you once and for all. You are extremely image conscious and ashamed of your attractions, and you can only assuage these persistent feelings of self-doubt, self-hatred, and emotional agony over the fact that society at large doesn't accept you for what you are by doing the same thing many victims of sexual assault do: you wear your pain like a badge of honor, and use it as an excuse to attack everyone who cares and understands you the most, and constantly insult them, because you believe deep down they are going to tolerate more than anyone else outside of the community out of deference for the fact that they consider you "family" for having those same feelings, and out of consideration for the fact that you are mentally disturbed. And by attacking those who are confident in their sexuality, you also convince yourself--and hopefully others outside the community, who are looking on--that you are making up for the self-hatred by coming off as this moral individual who truly cares about kids because he is willing to put a total moratorium on his icky sexual desires. The science may not back up these beliefs, but your main concern isn't truth, it's making yourself feel better, it's making the society you live in feel better about you, and it's about making yourself into the victim when people in your community get sick of your constant projection of your own anxieties and lack of self-respect and tell you so. You have to play the self-righteous good guy just like every fundamentalist Christian nutjob does, and you are the equivalent of the conservative right-wing homosexual politician or high-ranking minister who deals with their self-hatred of their attraction base by attacking other homosexuals so you can "prove" to both yourself and the community around you that you may be gay, but you are one of the "good" ones who at least goes out of his way to show repentance for his "sinful" feelings. You may purport to be an atheist, but rarely have I seen someone who is so desperate to save his soul and self-image at the expense of every principle he claims to hold dear.

I said all of that because I am sick of your constant accusations against me and the rest of the community who believe civil rights are important; who are confident with our own sexuality; who do not believe the sexual component of our attractions are inherently icky and immoral; and who are not loyal to the society you so desperately seek approval from; hence, I am telling you like it is, and requesting that you take a good, hard look at yourself in the mirror tonight, because every time you attack like this, and you refuse to listen to diplomacy (which I tried), I am going to slap you right back down. I'll fight you tooth and nail in self-defense every time you feel the need to fight about something, or make an outrageous and highly insulting accusation about. Capish, dude?

I know you think I was being harsh and mean, but I was simply telling it like it is from my standpoint, just like you frequently tell me and others on the board how little we care for kids, how misguided we are, how we let our loins control our thinking, and every other usual allegation of yours, etc. If you can tell us like it is as you see it, then you need to expect the same in return. I still do not outright dislike you, but I greatly detest your constant attacks and accusations, and while I sympathize with your problems, you need to be made aware with all frankness in how they affect others, because coddling you is only going to further encourage you to think your problems give you a sense of entitlement to behave like this as often as you do. Those who never show you the slightest bit of anger or harshness are not doing you any favors, nor are they doing this board any favors.

All it will do is serve to alienate those kids even more than they may already be, by slapping a 'philia' onto them which is just going to get twisted and abused by the media like 'pedophilia' has been.

And you are going to continue to ignore all the points I made about how this claim is made every time a new 'philia' term, or some new acronym is created. You are going to continue to insist that this is the only possible outcome, and never for one second consider that a mere word is not going to destroy an entire community, and that it might even serve to form a sense of identity for those with this preference, so they know they are not alone, know they are worth fighting for the rights to express these feelings, and understand that they are not "sick" or suffering from "daddy issues." And also so that society will cease pretending they do not even exist, which only exacerbates a sense of marginalization, as every homosexual felt back during the 1950s and '60s when the mainstream media didn't even acknowledge their existence.

Kids will maintain a strategic social and psychological advantage by not having their sexuality hammered down into something that can be used by the media, mental health sector, child advocates, etc. to diagnose any kid who doesn't go along with the official view of youth normality with a convenient label that isolates them from their peers.

Yup, like my identifying as hebephile--which helped make me realize I wasn't alone, wasn't "sick," and gained a great degree of minority pride in learning there was a word to describe those with my feelings--totally ruined me when I discovered it. Again, you see only one possible outcome to this based on your feelings about your pedophilia, and you do not see anyone with a sense of positive attitude towards their natural attractions to be in any way laudable.

Yes, I understand that labels need not be negative, but when it comes to this issue we both know it will be used as a weapon to control them, not to mention we will be accused of artificially tying our plight to theirs and dragging them through our own delusional filters, as if we need yet another layer of negativity attached to us.

No, we do not both "know" these things, Markie. You and others like you think these things, and you presume they are "truth" based on your insistence on projecting your fears onto your entire community, and everyone else. I believe that it's always more important to acknowledge the truth than it is to hide anyone--or any group of people--from it, and I strongly believe that history has shown that this can have the exact opposite of your assumption-cum-prediction by galvanizing those who currently feel they are alone with their attractions, much as it did us.

Don't use me as an excuse for your own stubbornness. You know you would have defended your decision regardless.

I will defend a position if I strongly believe in it, and I listened to your concerns and embraced them fully, since I felt they were reasonable, so you can hardly accuse me of dismissing your concerns, whereas I can justifiably accuse you and others of doing so. Once you decided that this was something worth antagonistic fighting over, I defended myself. And I will continue to do so for what I believe in every time you make these attacks. Count on it.

You always have because you are impervious to being told no, and the more people disagree with you, the more you dig in your heels, whether you're right or wrong. I have no illusions about the fact that you're not going to be convinced by my argument, no matter how sound it is, but I am registering my complaints and hopefully showing others why you are wrong to pursue this.

Here is the problem, Markie:

1) I have been wrong before, and have apologized and admitted it. You simply ignore it when it happens, but others do not.

2) Your concerns and complaints were duly acknowledged by me, and I incorporated them into my statements to my supporters, urging them to take what you said into consideration, and not to be too quick to apply this label to any given youth. I was quite respectful in tone, I was very sincere in that, and I tried hard to avoid fighting over this. Others read that and acknowledged that, whereas you (and others who have your basic stance) ignored it. Don't think people do not take that into consideration as to which of us plays more fair with the other side. And you wonder why you cannot get a majority of people to see things your way.

3) Nobody is right all of the time, and that certainly includes me, but I am not known to be wrong on a chronic basis, and I certainly turned out to be right during the very heated wars over using the terms "hebephile" and "MAA" in the past, not to mention the importance that ideology would play in our community dynamics. The fact that you disagree with a lot that I say doesn't mean that they are intrinsically "wrong," or that others "naturally" see it that way simply because you do.

4) These same arguments have been made on similar matters before, others here have seen them played out and cause a lot of chaos on the board, only to have it later proven that they were not worth fighting over.

5) You are an intelligent guy, and your degree of knowledge often puts me to shame, but you are not known for your stability. Despite my temper, I am not prone to bouts of instability where I attack my own community, treat my own community like they are the enemy, make wild accusations, or show signs of having my thinking obscured by serious mental illness. This is another reason why others may listen to me more often than you, and to be less inclined to consider my reasoning before yours. Despite your intelligence (which I honestly believe to be greater than mine), you do not have a track record of being level-headed, and you also do not turn out to be right that often, largely for that reason. You are also known for displaying more loyalty to the status quo than you do your community, which is another reason why others are likely not to trust you as much as me when you claim you have the best intentions for your community and/or the youth community in mind as opposed to just advancing the interests of the status quo. People continuously forgive you out of deference for your problems and some of the genuinely good contributions you have made here, but you do this often enough that you make it impossible for even the people who like you a lot to forget.

6) Plain and simply, the evidence is not on your side, as this game has been played out before, and it never resulted in what you are predicting, and this cause some people to understandably question your actual motives in fighting over this, especially after that mysterious 180 you did in terms of your stance. You may think this makes you look open-minded and conducive to change, but in actuality, the way you come across when you do this, it makes you appear unpredictable and untrustworthy.

This, in short, is why you are not going to convince large portions of the board that I am going to cause serious harm to the youth community by pursuing this, or convince many others that my intentions are selfish in this matter against my lack of reputation for betraying others, or that you are more likely than me to be correct in this particular instance. I will continue to show all due respect and consideration for your concerns, because they are legitimate, and I am not going to ignore them out of sheer vindictiveness to you, because I really do share your concerns even if I disagree with your claims as to what the outcome will be. Your insistence on the armageddon-ish outcome is going to look increasingly silly as time passes, and your periodic antagonistic attacks on me and others who use the term while those on my side are listening to you while you refuse to show the same courtesy in return, is going to grate on people's nerves more and more, and you are going to end up largely where you have ended up on the board before in the past when you have done things like this. Nothing you say or do is going to stop me from pursuing this unless you can show proof in time that you were correct, and I predict via hindsight that you most certainly won't. So keep up the attacks by all means, and let's see if your predictions come true over mine in the future.

Those terms are fundamentally different because they apply to us. We came up with the labels for ourselves, not for some other group.

Wrong. Very wrong on call counts. It was a social scientist during the 1950s who was NOT a MAP that coined the term "hebephile." "MAA" (the long-time precursor to "MAP") was coined by Heather Peterson on her website about 12 years ago, and she is NOT a MAP. "Nepiophile" was not coined by those with that attraction base. And for that matter, "pedophile" was NOT chosen by us either, but was created towards the end of the 19th century by a psychiatrist who was himself a MAP.

You just keep rehashing the same argument about why labels can be good, which is not the focus of my disagreement with you.

No, that is the focus of the argument, because you insist that only one outcome is possible, when the same 'gloom and doom' arguments have been made and proven wrong in time about other terms.

No battle forthcoming. I am not out to fight with you but to demonstrate that you're going to do more harm than good.

For all the reasons I mentioned up above, I will take my prediction over yours any day, but I promise to continue taking all of your concerns into acknowledgment. I do not consider your concerns to be bogus, simply your prediction of what the outcome must inevitably be.

But when the media starts abusing your terms and picking a new fight with us over this crap, I reserve the right to rub it in your face forevermore.

If the usual happens instead of your prediction, can I reserve the right to do the same to you? Will you cry foul if I do that? If I turn out to be wrong, I will simply admit it, as I am not afraid of criticism, especially if I deserve it, and I will not call you a "sore winner" if you do. No doubt some people will use that term negatively, that is a given, as the attraction base some of us are now calling pheophilia is not accepted by society; girls who have it are considered to have "daddy issues" and other insulting unscientific diagnoses. However, now that our attraction bases are beginning to be accepted as legitimate attraction bases as a result of the recent scientific furor over hebephilia being brought into the DSM as a sickness--thus causing more people than ever to critique the idea of pedophilia being in there--I believe near-future generations of pheophiles will find themselves more galvanized than harmed by the use of the word if it catches on. And I also predict the youth community as a whole, including the pheophile minority amongst them, will survive the invention of that word just fine.

Not that I'll take much pleasure in it, because that victory will come at the expense of the kids you claim to be working on behalf of.

I believe that in the long run, an acknowledgment of truth always works better than ignoring it or denouncing it, regardless of any noble excuses for doing one or both of the latter two things. Hence, I stand behind my prediction. And this won't be the first time (far from it, in fact) that you have accused the majority of the community of supporting measures that will ultimately come at the "expense" of the kids we "claim" to be working on behalf of, whether it's the support of civil rights, treating them according to their merits as individuals, questioning the prevailing cultural paradigms, etc., et al.

At the very least you should wait until kids are empowered enough to offer a significant opinion on the matter.

Which you are conveniently confident will not happen in our lifetime, thus hopefully (in your eyes) rendering this discussion moot. Nice try. There are other ways to solicit the opinions of kids, and that includes asking many young pheophiles of legal age their opinions. And when I do so, I predict the responses will vary greatly, but the majority--whether they agree or not--will not react with vitriolic opposition, as they will not think it's a matter worth expending that much anger or energy into fighting, due to the existence of more important things to put such time and energy into. I am betting that is going to be the majority stance on this board, too.

You are betraying your own philosophy more than you ever have before by insisting on this silliness.

It would only be a betrayal of my philosophy if I had some strong principle based on some fictional history where minority groups always emancipated themselves with no help whatsoever from those who had access to the political resources that the oppressed group lacked. I have never suggested any such thing, and you are the one engaging in supreme silliness by frequently taking stances that go against evidence and history, rather than in conjunction with it. Unlike you, I do not ignore what I read in the history books based on my personal sentiment and emotions.

And furthermore, people would take your accusations of betrayal on my part if I was the frequent type of unpredictable flip-flopper that you have tended to be, who lacked a simple degree of respect and confidence in my own natural attraction base, or if I also routinely engaged in insulting accusations against the bulk of my own community (and I have been critical of this community before, believe me). Your lack of confidence in yourself and lack of faith in your own community despite whatever level of affection and concern you may say you have for us suggests to many that you lack confidence in your own opinions and beliefs, especially when you can do the types of 180s back and forth you have done before, and just a few days ago on this matter. I modify my views also, but not so drastically overnight, or back and forth on a regular basis, which convinces others that I am confident in the views I do have, that I put real thought into them, and that I do not adopt or support opinions for reasons other than my strong belief in them. Confidence, stability, and respect are key, and while they do not confer anything near infallibility or perfection, they do justifiably cause people to listen more than those who lack these three traits.