The thing is, I do believe the very insular and isolated nuclear family unit does need to be accountable to the greater community.



How? Are you accountable to the wider community as a paedophile? Yes you are accountable to the law, but that's not the community.

Because I do not believe parents should be the owners of their children, and make every single major decision for them with no opportunity for the kids to air any legitimate grievances. Children would be considered part of the community, not part of an insular household, the inner happenings of which would be fully unknown to the rest of the community. And as a member of that same community, as a hebephile I would most definitely be accountable to the community. if my conduct was demonstrably harmful to other members of the community, I would expect them to step in and put a stop to it. If my conduct was merely "offensive" without actually causing any demonstrable harm to anyone, then I would expect the law to protect my rights.

Emotional abuse is a severe and largely overlooked problem



I wouldn't deny that, but to police and criminalise this area is very hard, and will lead to more harm than good, because as you concede..

It wouldn't be about policing or criminalizing, as I noted. It would be about simply but strongly allowing children and younger adolescents who were not happy in any given household the opportunity to leave if that was what they wanted.

I'm concerned about these State Appointed Guardians, as I worry they will simply become a third parent of sorts, rather than a true objective voice for children to air their legitimate grievances with.



So they have an agenda, and not one which tallies with my outlook or I feel your own outlook.

If they made decisions over and above what the children in question wanted, then no, they would not. If they acted as a force to enable children to act upon their own volition if their interests conflicted with that of their parents' desires, then I would support them. In other words, would they represent the will of the state (i.e., a second and conflicting authoritarian party) or would they represent the enforcement of the child's right to exercise their own volition? That diff would make all the diff to me, but the word "Guardian" gives me pause. In such a case, we would both oppose such a thing, but probably for different reasons: You would oppose the state contravening the power of the parents; I would oppose a state rep becoming a sort of third parent that doesn't take the volition of the child into account at all. So I'm honestly not sure how much in accord our opposition and position on these State Guardians would be.

Children need a voice and a committee to hear their grievances,



Agreed. Pink Party!!!

Stop it.

so if they are unhappy and subject to emotional abuse, then they can leave the home in question. That's what youth lib is all about.



Really? Well, Frank Furedi, (who is one of the very very few voices this side of the pond to frequently speak out against paedo-hysteria) says it's about a self-serving agenda to facilitate the predilections of some adults.. at least, he said that as regards the classic child liberation movement of the 70's, including PIE.

He said that because he is offended by the idea of intergenerational romance, and he doesn't want youths making decisions that go against his personal sensibilities. He also said that to demonize MAPs who are not against acting upon their feelings in an open, mutually consensual and respectful manner with knowledgeable younger people who are treated as full citizens. He does this by promoting the bigoted notion that if we have a desire to act upon the sexual component of our attractions, then sexual gratification must be the only thing we could possibly want. That is a classic anti-sex attitude translated into a specifically intergenertional relationship context. Mr. Furedi may not like witch-hunts from the standpoint of his respect for civil rights, but he clearly thinks civil rights should be stifled if they conflict with cultural values and established hierarchies.

There are many individuals who try to paint the era of the 1970s as a breeding ground for perverts and monsters as a backlash towards certain progress made that is no longer supported in the more conservative post-'70s climate.

However this isn't the 70's, and whilst I would not subscribe to the old PIE agenda.. I do profess a healthy girllove from which the desire for change stems from, and i've brought this to the board for respectful and robust debate this past week. There is a need for reform, where kids can have a voice independent of both the state and stakeholder agencies on the one hand, and the nuclear family on the other hand. Because I agree with you on this, that neither parents or the state can always be trusted to act in kids best interests.. nor the wider mainstream community either. But community can take many forms and mean many things to many people, just as the definition of family varies widely.

Accordingly, the community can be seen as a form of extended family. These things should be defined by individuals, rather than decided upon by widespread cultural fiat. And while we seem to be in accord on certain things, I do not see how the basic agenda of PIE was incompatible or "too extreme" for the granting of choice and agency to younger people. The PIE agenda in no way gave MAPs any type of disproportionate power over younger people.

Um, Alice, are you aware from reading my posts that I'm a youth liberationist, not a parental power advocate? Many others here are also, which I would imagine you should have gleaned from reading the recent posts. There were many youth libbers here during your previous tenure on the board years ago too, including me, if you recall. It's fine that you think differently..



No, it's a rhetorical device, more to highlight the level of state and outside intrusion into peoples lifes, rather than unconditional approval of the nuclear family.

I know what you mean there. The problem is, currently younger people have little to no rights at all, and are consequently fully at the mercy of their parents and other familial "guardians" in these very closed off and secluded nuclear family households. The question therefore remains this: If the greatest amount of real abuse of all kinds occurs in such insular units of extreme power imbalance, how can kids subjected to such abuse escape from it? What about kids who are simply not happy due to emotional abuse, or not being a good "fit" with their families as housemates? Again, I'm not saying parents should go to jail for every little thing. There could be alternative choices that do not entail anyone being arrested.

As I said, controlling instrusive bastards come in many forms, whether, family, workplace, school, community, or services. They just want to invent problems which don't exist and then 'help'. As Pink Floyd sang............ Hey Teacher, leave them kids alone...

In that case, the kids should have some democratic committee they could approach outside of the household to simply help them leave a household in which they are terribly unhappy, and not treated like full human beings.

And since when are you familiar with Pink Floyd???

Speaking for myself, Alice, I have never been seeking a Carrollian kind of GL regarding young adolescent girls, but a full, unabashed emancipation agenda



Good luck with that...

Emancipation movements have occurred many times in the past, even though the generation immediately before them often resigned itself to believing it would "never" happen (note again how Ralph Waldo Emerson said that "no man living today will ever see the end of slavery"... a mere six years before the resolution of the Civil War ended slavery). We don't need "luck"; we just need historical forces to reach the point where gradual progression (now embodied by the youth liberation movement) finally comes to fruition. As I also noted before, revolutions tend to be the simple culmination of evolution. I likely will not live to see the full emancipation, but that in no way invalidates it as a worthwhile endeavor to strive for.

where they have control over their own lives, the right to vote, a mutually respectful relationship with their parents, and the right to choose full romantic relationships. I wish the same thing for children, who I believe have much more potential than they are currently allowed to achieve or express. I seek to earn the trust of all society that MAPs are decent people, but the trust of parents, as important as that would be to me, would always be secondary in importance to the trust of their kids.

Don't you feel that in order to "earn" trust towards reaching some of your more achievable goals, there has to be some self-reflection revision and compromise?

Alice, pro-choicers like me have compromised plenty: 1) We strive to fully obey the laws regardless of how we may feel about them; 2) We have resolved to work only within the system to effect changes, in ways that are entirely harmonious with democratic principles; 3) We have striven to establish peaceful dialogue with the general public, to earn their trust by deeds rather than simple words; and, 4) To work hard to live ethically upright and productive lives despite the flaws we share with the rest of the human race. How much further must we compromise to make you and the general public satisfied? Seriously.

Some acceptance that not a lot of inroads are being made, things are getting darker and more censorious, and a fresh approach is needed, no? Because at the moment, where you are, and where mainstream society is on the issue of children, is a million miles apart.

But we seem to be reaching a point where the hysteria (at least in the U.S., where it mostly originated in the first place) has reached or nears reaching its peak. It's become more clear that there are many open-minded Non-MAPs who were simply silent out of fear to dissent during the worst of the hysteria. I don't think society should be hit with a full emancipation agenda right now, and I agree that society at large is not yet ready for it. But that doesn't mean it should be taken entirely off the table, declared forever "unachievable," and not discussed on its own merits on certain venues (such as this board and information archives like Newgon and IPCE).

There is no dialogue taking place.

There is dialogue taking place thanks to orgs like B4U-ACT and (I must concede) VirPed (I don't pretend they don't exist like they often try to pretend that B4U-ACT doesn't, or downplay its achievements). Neither of these orgs are hitting the public with an emancipation agenda. But we have reached the beginning of dialogue.

Just polarised positions - with society (thanks to media and political scaremongering granted) consequently having a largely erroneous negative and distorted impression of those who profess girllove. Without change, not only are you limiting your own cause, but equally importantly failing to help and reach out to those millions of people who hide repress or misunderstand thier feelings.. because there is nowhere for them to turn, neither to GC or VP; One approves of sex, the other is guilty about sex, but there are millions for whom that is not what girllove is about.

Well, then it appears there needs to be other orgs or fora who simply promote a form of GL that is based entirely upon aesthetic appreciation, with the sexual component more or less off the agenda or discussion itinerary. Different MAPs will want to focus on different things, but all aspects of GL legitimate in their own way. GC is not just about "sex" either; it's a place to discuss all aspects of GL. The fact that the majority of us are pro-choice means that the sexual component will not be given short shrift or rejected, and the right to express it naturally and youth lib will be frequent topics.

You have every right to talk about other aspects of GL that are important to you here, as it would add a lot of flavor and beneficial diversity to the community. But if you try to present it as being something superior and intrinsically preferable to the pro-choice agenda, instead of simply being a different but equal aspect of GL, then you are going to meet heavy resistance. That's to be expected, I'm sure you know.