Re: amazing that we choose the wire monkey ...

"Funny, Ethan already defined them as indistinguishable when he talked about concealed asymmetrical benefits as "ulterior motive" and said that he needed to know states of mind through a psychic machine before allowing touch for children."

"Totally wrong. I do not need a machine for *that* purpose. All I need is an adult woman recollecting what happened and realizing based on adult knowledge of the world that it was a sexual touch."

Except that you need to know how she will feel about it while she is still a child, which is why you brought up the fantasy "machine" in the first place.

You take Susan Clancy' view that processing it as sexual requires processing it as betrayal; and that this sort of betrayal is of an inherently different nature to the everyday ones all children experience.

I see, despite the attempted rewriting of history, all sorts of former children coming forward to argue that they were not traumatized. And I don't see the mechanism by which "fun" or "funny" become "crippling" absent of social insistence that it must be.

Indeed, in the presence of sex is magic and sex is inherently about power and is tainted by it; then abstinence becomes a more compelling argument. However, such arguments are actually arguments against consent for all. And the likelihood of free-love females coming to harm from those who would tell them they're "damaged goods," was not an argument which justified keeping the delicate female from exercising her rights.

All your analogies depend upon children never initiating sexual contact. I think that this is a very dangerous moral blindspot from either an empowerment or a protecting point of view.

And treating children as a subset of brain-damage is as valid now as it was when it was applied to other disenfranchised groups.

Though could you explain to me how Majority puts a stop to our capacity to process events in the future? Why that future knowledge doesn't nullify assent we give in adulthood? And why concealed benefits nullify choices made in the present for gains given in the present?

( If I'm wanking off to this post, have you been rayped? Should you have been prevented from posting it? )

Dante