Re: Diss would call it debate

I wouldn't rely on any historical eveidence to support such views.

How convenient...

Child prostitution

...is not what he was talking about.

Some of the vigilantes might see it differently as might the numbers involved in protecting children from such abuse.

His point is that the supply is endless. You may kill us all but there will be others to take our place. If you see it from the perspective of stopping one actor, that's very successful indeed; but if you see it from the perspective of shrinking the overall numbers, then no, it's never going to happen.

Have you actually seen any progress towards the legitimising of sexual relationships between adults and pre-pubescents over the last few decades?

No.

And yet still you don't see his argument for Oceania or Anarchy?

They have always done so it seems but there are equally just as many perhaps who regret having had early sex.

And we shouldn't legislate on the basis of regrets. The only thing you'll never regret is your own suicide.

Perhaps it has never occurred to you that this might have formed your current views on the subject and that these experiences were atypical?

And if so, perhaps it has never occurred to you that the atypical have as much right to have their feelings and pursuing their happiness as the typical?

Asexual children are not the problem. It is children who do not conform to the societal expectation of hormonal atrophy who are the problem.

Perhaps because the "repression" is in your head

Oh, now I get it. Those who regret having had early sex are telling the truth, but those who regret having been repressed don't count, don't matter, are probably not even human. Am I right now?

From some of the sources I have quoted previously it seems that it is especially atypical to have what most would regard as true sexual experiences prior to puberty rather than just sex-play and exploration.

As I said yesterday, to your non-answer, either this is a semantic game where it's the age and not the act that defines it, or it's still not an argument in support of contact bans.