Re: More complicated

"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."

Not a whole lot.

But it shows up at some point between the American colonial period and the 20th century. Possibly being an artifact of the identity with the pioneers who had nothing to lose by leaving their kin instead of identifying with the inheriting offspring whose parents could still revoke their inheritance if they married wrong, raised their children wrong or ........

Certainly cemented by the nuclear family, and its notion of grandparents as infrequent guests.

"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."

I'm not sure how "put them in an old-age-home" is the same as the filial duty to return the favor. If one was raised in an orphanage, then the retirement home is symmetrical. Otherwise, removing the interfering mother-in-law and the underfoot grandparents is very asymmetric.

"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?"

Pedos tend not to believe that "I'm the adult, I know best" is the better framework to teach the lessons about responsibility and freedom. The idea that you begin with absolute obedience and somehow graduate to liberty seems very strange indeed. Even more strange is the notion that at some point it gets utterly cut-off.

Not that I'm shilling for Goethe, but at least the notion that one's children are children for life; and the parent will always be older and ( in most ways ) more experienced and therefore still having the same basis to rule makes sense.

OTOH, we are closer to the beasts. Children champ at the bit. Their sire strikes them back when they encroach on his rites to the choice feed and the mares. And some day the child is big enough and the parent weak enough that the parent loses the challenge.

We've transformed that into "my house, my rules." With the notion that on the day that the child can remove themself from the parent, they can be free to do as they see fit. ( This is also dependent upon the modern atomistic notion of reputation, in which your actions only reflect upon yourself. And nobody will say, "There goes sadlife, his son got a divorce in his 30s, they're a bad family." )

"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."

Yes, but clearly the shit also hits the fan if one acts as if the child is sexy. Even if that one is a str8 advertising exec or a grocery store selling bras to preteens.

VP gives lip service to fighting for the right of the segregated Pedo who would never act to say that she is hawt, and then makes sure that any such convo cannot be seen by the public on their forum. Perhaps they have seen that such quotes make up the bulk of the archived Wikisposure pages.

You've got to remember that most lynchings were not over actual interrace sex, but over a gaze or an appreciative comment. Whether anyone takes a purity vow to never act is irrelevant to the hysterics.

Dante