Using the word "my", you imply this is your judgment for your own personal psychology, and I accept that. You seem to allow that it might not be that way for others like me.

If it works for you, fine. But I wouldn't recommend it to anybody, because in my experience, I do not see self-disparagement of that nature to help with self-esteem, because it effectively demonizes a major and natural part of your being.

You have added the adjectives "common", "sentimental", and "moralistic" and I don't see evidence for applying them to me.

Common= You do it very often, hence I believe it is indeed applicable to you. Sentimental= Adherence to a powerful emotional belief regardless of the evidence is based on putting sentiment before fact, and I believe that is indeed applicable to you. Moralistic= You make many moralizing statements that ignore evidence in favor of common beliefs connected to a particular paradigm you seem to strongly feel that females in general and girls in particular fit into, so I believe that is likewise applicable to you.

"Female fragility" is not based on a generalized female fragility, but to a tendency to distress with regard to sex.

Yet men tend to distress very much over matters of romance, but because they are less demonstrable in public about their feelings along these lines, our culture develops the assumption that they "stress less" over it. The belief that women are inherently fragile adds to this belief. You very frequently refer to this as fact, when it is nothing of the such.

Evo psych would strongly suggest that females care greatly about this, which is why rape tends to be so distressing, as does the perception in the moment that a relationship will be long-term and later discovery that it is not.

Evo psych seems to be based more on victimology ideology rather than hard science, considering how you describe it. There are many men who are raped too, and men receive much more shame about this than women do, because men are expected to be "macho" and rape strips all of that away from him. Our culture doesn't expect women to be brave, and she would receive a lot of sympathy and support if admitting to being raped, whereas men are often ridiculed for not being strong enough to fend it off. It seems you consider the effects of cultural expectations on men and women, and popular cultural views on both, to be scientific fact rather than... cultural beliefs and expectations.

Remember that we are talking about a rather hypothetical situation in which current societal attitudes are profoundly changed. It is impossible to know what would happen, but the evo psych consideration suggests that distress would remain -- and could well be expressed in extreme difficulty in actually bringing about those societal changes.

Which assumes that the majority of girls would support insulting cultural assumptions about themselves over agency, and ask for protection instead of seeking freedom to choose. Yet women are predominantly making a point to support empowerment over protectionist restrictions, which goes against your belief that the majority would agree to restrict themselves in submission to popular sentiment. In other words, your beliefs about how you think women should be conflict with their most frequent opinions of their own capabilities.

It may be "largely moral" in the views of many, but I assert that it isn't in my case. Of course it depends on what you mean by "moral".

Meaning a strong belief about how things should be based upon your image of a group, rather than the doctrine of opportunity based on individual merit and freedom as a principle. So yes, I think that has been proven to be applicable to your overall ideology with a great deal of consistency.

I assume that you view the denial of rights to minors as a strongly moral issue -- it is immoral to deny them those rights, but I presume you don't want to be tagged as a moralist.

So you must mean "moralism" to mean something else, and I'd guess conventional notions that sex is morally wrong unless done under certain specific circumstances.

You're on the right track there, bro. Just to be clear, there is a difference between morality and moralism, as many civil rights activists have pointed out, and the two should not be mistaken for each other, as they too often are.

Morality is based on a sense of right or wrong that takes individual circumstances into consideration, and the acceptance of nuance and subjectivity is a strong part of it. It also depends on showing good evidence for demonstrable harm before across-the-board prohibition is considered. For example, I believe it's immoral to steal from someone for purely selfish reasons; commit an act of violence against them in a situation that doesn't involve self-defense; or wreck someone's property simply because you don't like them. These things all cause demonstrable harm, and it can cogently be argued they are immoral.

Doing any of the above things for purely altruistic reasons, however - e.g., stealing a rare form of medicine that an insurance company won't let you have because you can't afford it to save a life; commit an act of violence to subdue someone who is needlessly picking on a weaker person; or smashing someone's window in because you had good reason to suspect they may be in need of help. In other words, it can immoral to do something if it would cause demonstrable harm to others for purely self-serving reasons, but similar actions in situations where people would be helped rather than harmed changes the moral value applied to them. Absolutism is pretty much unknown in the realm of morality, which is by necessity dependent on specific reasons that are specific to certain individuals under certain circumstances.

Moralism is based on absolutes, and is entirely faith-based in that it disqualifies the requirement of evidence, isn't concerned about nuance, and more concerned about how the status quo feels about a certain action or opinion than it does on actual outcomes. And most importantly, it demands judgment based on arbitrary factors that may not reflect reality of the individual circumstances or person, and these factors are a never a concern where this dogma is concerned. For example, saying that homosexuality should be forbidden because it hurts the concept of the "traditional family" is moralizing, not moralistic; saying that "doggie style" sex should be prohibited because the majority feels it's inherently "degrading" to women regardless of the fact that many women find it pleasurable is moralizing, not moralistic; saying that youths should be forced to abstain from sexual contact because most believe the concept of the child as being innocent without "dirty" sexual feelings is an inherently blissful and beautiful state of being no matter what individual children may be like is based on moralizing sentimentality and loyalty to a concept, and has nothing to do with morality.

"total prohibition ... draconian" This depends on how you see the underlying landscape.

Absolutism that doesn't consider nuance, individual circumstances, whether or not evidence can be found for demonstrable harm, etc., to be the least bit relevant to any given law or rule are all indicative of a draconian landscape.

I see very few prepubescents inherently interested in sexual relationships,

Suggesting that prepubescents would be open in front of adult relatives or individuals who have authority over them about this matter, especially how they are punished or berated for so much as saying a "dirty" word in public, is, to put it honestly, extremely naive and willfully blind to the societal situation that children currently find themselves in. Yet it's well known that prepubescents routinely initiate games of "doctor" or "show me" with peers and sometimes trusted adults whom they may be interested in, and whom they believe may participate rather than punish.

and little harm to postpubescent minors if sex is kept out of relationships with adults.

Removing choice and the right to free agency is a huge amount of harm, because it excludes them from ownership of their own bodies and from the democratic process, thus treating them as third-class citizens. What their individual desires may or may not be is completely irrelevant when it comes to this principle.

You seem to see these cases as more common or more important.

To the first: I was a child once, I knew many other children when I was a child, I knew what we did and talked about behind the scenes, and I know that much research has debunked the sentimental notion that children are inherently asexual in reality. And parents and other adults wouldn't be so intent to watch children like hawks if they weren't concerned that they might violate the asexual paradigm.

As to the second: You're absolutely correct that I consider all civil rights, including sexual agency, to be extremely important. I wouldn't be worth my salt as an ardent defender and supporter of civil liberties and democratic precepts if I didn't. And how common such desires would be are extremely irrelevant, because one of the most important tenets of constitutional democracy is that minority feelings and choices are every bit as important as those which the vast majority may hold.

I assert they are of intense interest to a community like this one because of interest in being on the other end of those sexual relationships (even if unlikely in practice and in some distant future when societal values have changed).

You mean for the same reason that the right to practice homosexual relations in a mutually consensual and mutually respectful manner is very important to those in the homosexual community who do not adhere to a creed that considers such acts immoral? That's common sense, and hardly denotes anything sinister or improper.

I'd suggest an analogy to shoplifting. We've got a societal rule that it's wrong. If somebody really needs something, doesn't have the money, and is going to return it unharmed the next day, is it still wrong? Arguably not. I suppose you might get leniency from a judge in a case like that. But advertising it as "shoplifting is sometimes OK" isn't good social policy, and could easily lead to rationalizations and endless court cases with little merit.

The problem is, stating it like you did, and saying nothing else, is indeed bad social policy. But it does at least beg the question as to why. People who need something but cannot afford it on the spot can be serviced by places that give on credit without checking, in the manner of a library. What libraries do with books can easily be done with places that lend out tools, lawnmowers, vehicles, etc. In other words, we can find ways to accommodate people based on circumstance. Supporting laws based on absolutes is what actually leads to rationalizations, because it necessitates arguing why it's always "wrong" to do a certain thing regardless of all circumstances and nuances, and that inevitably requires moralizing.

Blanket prohibitions can be matters of good social policy, not imposition of morality.

Not if they are based on admittedly arbitrary assumptions and ideologies that activity X is always "wrong" regardless of whether demonstrable harm occurs. That type of social policy is only "good" if you want to have a certain type of society, and my stance is that a society based on democratic freedoms is preferable and much easier to live with... especially if you're a minority.

"Adult-child sexual activity is always wrong" is justified in my mind as good social policy.

And not in mine, because again, it doesn't consider any type of nuance, doesn't recognize individual merits, doesn't consider the full citizenship of younger people, and will inevitably punish many innocent people who haven't actually caused any demonstrable harm to anyone. In other words, I see it as totally incompatible with any society that purports to be based on civil liberties, freedom of conscience, and the right to the pursuit of happiness for all.

You may recall that in cases of adult-child sexual activity, I favor less severe penalties to begin with and feel that unless a minor is willing to say that she (or he) was wronged, the case shouldn't proceed. That's not moral absolutism.

But if you turn around and say a case shouldn't even be investigated if there is a disagreement between a minor and an adult, then you are indeed taking a moralizing stance based on popular sentiment. Such is the case whenever assumptions are made and what may be the actual truth is considered irrelevant. It also encourages many minors to become unscrupulous, as any group of people will do so if they feel they can get away with blackmail or extortion with ease and impunity.

On other hand, if you believe that something is always wrong from a moral standpoint, but do not believe it should be criminalized as long as there is no evidence that any force or coercion is being used, then I would consider you a reasonable person regardless of your moral stance.

As for Robert Epstein's test, I suppose it could work in theory. But how many kids are going to go before a committee to argue their right to sexual activity?

I suspect many will if they have an interest in exploring their sexuality, and are assured they will not be punished or in any way censured for asking to take that test, and to expect an objective evaluation. Judging how they may act if such were the case based on how they are forced to hide this part of themselves for very good reason in today's society, where social policy puts kids in jail for taking and sharing sexy pics of themselves, is like arguing that most black people would never have an interest in learning to read and write based on the fact that so few of them showed any overt interest in it during the pre-Civil War days when they would be severely punished for attempting to learn. It's an extreme form of willful denial of the way things are in the current system and also an extreme form of dirty pool.

Also, again, how many would or would not have an interest in taking that test is totally irrelevant, according to principles of democracy. It would be the same reason why we do not deny women the right to apply to the police academy to earn their badge if they prove the ability to pass the training, just because it's well known that the great majority of those who show an interest in being cops are men. And it's why we do not deny blacks the right to enter an advanced graduate physics program if they are proven to possess the necessary intellect simply because the vast majority of people who enter those programs are white.

Would it be any more important than a Justified Shoplifting Commission?

Again, that's like asking "Would it be justified to commit murder?" instead of asking "Is it justified to take a life if circumstances would merit it?" You are deliberately using words that you know are negatively charged in order to make that which you're comparing it to sound equally bad.

It's certainly a public relations disaster for pedophiles to suggest it. Yeah, I know you don't care -- principle above all else.

No, I very much care how something is done and said. It's about context and timing. Principle above all else means I will not lie or pretend to espouse an ideology I believe is not justified; it doesn't mean that adherence to principle means I must or would blunder ahead with a methodology that is unworkable. Yes, I do indeed believe principle is more important than assuaging the feelings of others if it requires dishonesty on my part. That doesn't mean I dispense notions of pragmatism or reasonable compromise, however. You do see me making every effort to follow the laws as currently written, for example. It simply means that I do not think it's ever necessary to dispense with principles to accomplish something, because if we treat our principles as only being important when they're convenient, then we might as well turn around and welcome a draconian system. Frivolous adherence to principle is like having no principles at all.

My point is that saying that there is no scientific basis for my beliefs allows the explanation from your point of view that my beliefs are based on science but incorrect rather than being based on moralistic precepts.

No, since they ignore the results of much objective scientific study, and are based on absolutes and popular cultural expectations, I think it's fully justified to conclude they are based on moralistic beliefs.

I think you are wrong here. They don't have the testosterone so their bodies build up that sort of muscle mass only with extreme difficulty if at all -- or with doping.

Women who work out on a regular basis can develop strength considerably greater than men who never work out and never do more than an average amount of exercise. This is another factor not taken into consideration by Ted.

I think I'll go through your suggested bibliography as a top-level post.

I provided the examples to prove that such research is there. I believe you have already made up your mind long before we first met, so I do not think that anything you read there will have the slightest bit of impact on you. Emotion and moral agendas always trump reason and objectivity. I provided them simply to show they are there. They are written for those who are genuinely on the fence about the issue, or truly interested in what evidence has to say. Just to be honest, I think you have proven often you are not among their number.