best Dante post ever IMO

But the history of how those children have been used and abused in the West and elsewhere also reveals an ownership paradigm. Children have been sold to cement alliances, as hostages to ensure cooperation between vassal States and the Imperial one, to work off family debts.

This also plays into the notion that there is a preordained hierarchy with a series of master-servant relationships; with Ghods at the top, followed by Kings and various officials, Fathers as the domestic master and so on. This not only gives the lowliest servant their own child as a subordinate, but uses this relationship to distract them from the fact of their own subjugation.

As far as I can tell, it has always been this way. I realized that when I read the first several pages of Allie Kilpatrick's, "Long Range Effects" book, where she mentions Talmud rules about intercourse 'laws' below 3 years old and Hebrew 'laws' below 7 years old (puts Islam 'rules of thumb' below 9 yeas old in a conservative light).

It seems we have come a long way, in one sense, to prevent this obvious sexual abuse of girls via less parental ownership 'rights'. Overboard, but still an improvement over that ancient world of child property.

Dante, I'm counting on you to correct me if I'm off base here.

We have got to realize that the whole idea of selfless parents whose goal with their children is to foster such independence that their adult offspring depend upon them for nothing and owe them nothing compulsory in return is VERY recent and very local.

I'm interested in history of this; how this came about/got started, if you have any references I can chase.

The rest of the planet understands that filial duty to obey is for life; at least the life of the parents.

Just one caveat: duty to 'serve' remains. In Merica and, as far as I can tell, even more so elsewhere, children have moral and social duty to care for their parents in the parents old age. One of the reasons, I suppose, why the interest in raising them to be independent and successful.

And we are doing so without treating the artifacts of the child's enslavement as features necessary for their emancipation.

Sorry, lost me here. Can you elaborate a little?

It seems to me that at some point the uncomfortable convo has to happen

And that seems to me to be the one about, 'so you are attracted to a 10 year old (insert your AoA) and would have sex with her if it was legal and she wanted to?'. At that point, call yourself anything you want, pedophile or child lover - no matter - the shit has hit the fan.

Ultimately social movements cannot depend on the movement catering its message so that it is acceptable to those who see no need to change. And ultimately their allies will be from among those who can see that what they thought was well-intentioned help to defend fragile womanhood is actually toxic and exploitive.

This will require educated and confident warriors that can stand in the face of fire. Not all of us are equipped to do that. But maybe we should all be preparing for it the best we can.