This post is aimed at those who think adult-child sexual activity is fundamentally OK. You may know from my other posts that I disagree, but this post has nothing to do with that. I urge you to read my words and judge them on their own merits, as if written by someone else.

In the wider world, the overwhelmingly popular belief is that adult-child sex is fundamentally wrong and people shouldn't engage in it.

Another overwhelmingly popular belief is that children are not especially oppressed by the adults around them except in individual cases of abuse.

Anyone reading this post has somehow found his or her way to GirlChat. If you're a typical girl-lover, you will be very attracted by the idea that adult-child sex is fundamentally just fine. You can not only feel better about your attraction but hope that you could act on it some day. That's an appealing message!

Here at GC you will also find the view argued forcefully and often that children are fundamentally oppressed in similar fashion to how blacks, women and gays in the US used to be oppressed, and that basic decency requires a commitment to youth liberation.

If you're a typical pedophile it would be natural to conclude from GC that these two things are linked -- the wise folks who have discovered that adult-child sex will be OK in a better world have also discovered that children are seriously oppressed and need to be liberated.

I say there is no necessary linkage, and that possibility deserves to be openly considered here at GC. It is a perfectly sensible position to think that children are not oppressed in some profound way, but that a small change is appropriate. For instance, argue that kids have the maturity at any age to consent to sexual activity, and society should grant them that right. It's a limited change. Sort of like society now thinks that children should not be spanked or beaten and they don't need to address their fathers with "Yes, Sir".

Now, unusual opinions are expressed here by a few -- that girls really ought to get married when they are very young, or that parents really do own their kids and in principle at least should be free to kill them if that's what they felt like doing. But others argue against them and they remain marginal opinions. Though I haven't personally seen it, we could also have devout religious people who would argue adult-child sex is good because the Hebrew bible is the word of God and it allows for it. Muslims could also argue that Mohammed's life shows in concrete terms that adult-child sex is just fine. We could have those who embrace the coming singularity of computer intelligence find some reason to approve of it. I suspect that few would agree with any of them, and that in particular the established "idea people" Dante and Dissy would argue against them.

However, youth liberation is different. Dissy and Dante will argue strenuously with anyone who disputes that view. No one will argue against it (except the turncoat Markaba and that new guy Ethan, both widely reviled). It certainly leaves the impression that just about everyone here agrees with it -- that GirlChat has discovered both that adult-child sex is fundamentally OK and that a major injustice in this world is the oppression of youth.

I want to encourage GC members to think about these issues separately -- to realize you can accept the message of hope of sex with enthusiastic kids and not embrace youth liberation. (The opposite is of course also possible, but not so relevant on this board.)

Arguing over whether adult-child should be OK can be a limited discussion of manageable size.

Youth liberation is much bigger and more complicated, and Dissy in particular constantly broadens discussions to bring in a far-reaching critique of modern Western society. Now, analyzing the entire structure of society for purposes of improving it is incredibly complicated. The best intellectuals with the best intentions hardly ever move each other an inch on these questions. I'm confident that none of us on this board -- including Dissy, Dante, and me -- will have insights beyond the best intellectuals and come up with an analysis so persuasive it will convince many people. This led me to exit from that endless discussion and recently just state that I think Dissy's analysis is all wrong.

That's of course not an argument. It's only intended to open minds. To urge people to consider separately the questions of whether adult-child sex is just fine on the one hand, and whether youth oppression more broadly is a serious injustice and an outrage.

I'll take up how a typical person who isn't a brilliant intellectual might evaluate youth liberation in another post.

I'm certainly not saying youth liberation is irrelevant to adult-child sex or should be declared off-topic! It is a natural result of youth liberation that kids should choose their own sexuality. The story of Mohammed and Aisha is also relevant. The idea that parents own their children would argue for adult-child sex with parental permission. All are on topic.