Throw in a third group that really is out for only themselves - con men and charlatans - and there really can be abusive situations

Power tends to corrupt those in such positions, so that the ones who start out with generally good intentions ultimately end up becoming no different than those who were con men and charlatans from the get-go in terms of outcome. Ultimately, it's the outcome that counts more than the initial intention.

- but that is why we need to exercise discernment to be able to tell these sorts of situations and people apart.

I think this is why we need to look at historical outcomes of the same type of thing first and foremost.

There are entire sets of traditions devoted just to preventing the con men and charlatans from overrunning society, but sadly most of those traditions have been curtailed - by the con men and charlatans, mostly.

One of the unfortunate but historically common outcomes of putting people in power: the top of the hierarchy is not a place where genuinely good people tend to thrive, but rather the con men and charlatans. We can argue all day that the ideal situation would be for good people to fill those seats of power, but history has repeatedly shown that good people filling seats of power far too often do not remain good people.

There is a time to let a society collapse - but we should also consider what society will look like after that collapse.

Which is why I have always been about planning what the future will be.

If we can find a way to reshape society in a way that benefits everyone that is best, if not a collapse might be managed to prevent worst case scenarios. The fact is, most revolutions fail and the new, revolutionary regime is usually worse than the one it replaced.

Because most so-called revolutions are spontaneous (not planned), violent (not conducted via civilized methods), easily compromised (because too many members are willing to toss aside the moral high ground to achieve their goals), and simply replace one set of masters with another. They are not so much revolutions as coups. Sort of like what the SJWs are attempting to initiate.

(This is why many nations see a wave of revolutions instead of a single one.) The American Revolution was an exception largely because it was led by the elite and was devoted to maintaining traditional rights - while adding and expanding a few.

It was conducted during a different era, when one global world order needed to be replaced by another. Its eventual success was inevitable. And it's why the Founding Fathers placed Article V in the Constitution--since they recognized that another revolution may one day become necessary.

As girl lovers, we should pay special attention to what society will look like after the revolution, because the girls we love will be paying the price if we are wrong.

Which is what I have ALWAYS been implicit about, as you should know, having resided here with me and fought beside me (and occasionally against me) throughout all of these years. I simply do not agree that a close variant of the world we have now, albeit allowing for child marriages to adults, is the image of that better future world.

They don't. A norm is just that, a norm. It is not a command, it is not a law, it is not a requirement. It is just the base standard, which everyone will deviate from to some degree. A society needs norms, just as it needs those who deviate from those norms. The important thing is not that gay relationships fit any norm, but that gay people - and everyone else - is accepted regardless of whether they are close to the norm.

I can agree with that last sentence of yours, but I'm sure you know that one of the major problems of our present society is that acceptance of those who deviate from the norm is most certainly not in practice. Norms are definitely intended to be imperatives in our society, any amount of liberal lip-service to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, let us make a point to consider that many straight couples--and straight people in general--do not follow norms because they are unsuited for them. That is certainly the case with GLer's like us. For instance, one of the imposed norms is life-long monoamory, and it has been cogently argued that this may not be in the best interests of either many MAPs nor many potential young partners of ours. I would not agree to only engage in such mutually desired relationships if they occurred in accordance with the demands of monogamous marriage. The option should be there, don't get me wrong; but we both know it would be a very bad idea to impose it as a requirement, and in fact it would likely be more suited to teleiophile men, as opposed to MAPs, and not for a large number of girls. Or, perhaps MAPs who adhered to strict religious faiths that insisted on romance within the bounds of monogamous matrimony only.

I am probably about as far from the norm as any person could be, but I still appreciate those norms.

I am under no obligation to appreciate norms, especially when so many people in society attempt to impose them on me regularly, such as when I hear things like: "Why aren't you married yet at your age?" "Don't you want to reproduce and 'run' a family?" "How could you expect any woman to want to marry you if you do not have a high-paying job?" "Why are you 'unwilling' to date a woman in your own age group?" Yadda, yadda... and yadda.

I accept those norms for those whom they work for. But I do not respect them in essence, because they have not resulted in a society that has been friendly to people like me on many levels outside of my hebephilia.

They provide an anchor through which I can communicate with others who are entirely unlike myself. They create some measure of shared experience through which I can understand others and they can understand me.

I have never personally known these norms to foster understanding between those who hold to them, and those who do not because they cannot.

And I have seen no indication that the girls don't have any say.

[snip!]

All of the points you made here were very logical, Baldur, despite how unpopular they would obviously be to the world at large since it so hugely conflicts with the common paradigm of childhood (especially in the West). I won't attempt to refute them, since I can't, but I will add this caveat: I think we should have been asking the question of choice more than we did. Or made that point central, based on everything you mentioned. But I didn't see that being asked, and was instead confronted with qtns jumping giddily for joy without asking a single, solitary question, and that, quite frankly, pissed me off.

We do need to consider that child marriage, like child labor, is a subject that carries a huge amount of stigma with it. When people see the former mentioned, they immediately conjure images of the girl being auctioned off by her father as a commodity to a slavering, abusive monster of a husband against her will, dragged into his bed kicking and screaming in horror as her "innocence" is callously stolen from her, when all she really wants out of life is playing with dolls, having tea parties, and "just being a kid." Much as the mention of child labor automatically conjures images of kids being forced to work 12 hours a day for pennies on the hour in brutal sweatshop conditions.

This may be wrong, but I think it should be addressed and explained. We should say more about it and demand a few stipulations and caveats like those you mentioned in good detail, as opposed to just "jumping for joy" at a linked headline declaring the legality of child marriage--and not saying anything beyond that.

Why do you assume that there is no consent? Just because these are Islamic, patriarchal cultures? Most men in these cultures will not force a girl or woman to marry without their consent, and while they may exert some pressure to marry will generally respect a daughter's wishes about who she marries.

I will answer this question of yours with a question: Have you seen the huge fiasco regarding the topic of your above excerpt that has been an ongoing thing over at Lensman's Consenting Humans blog? If not, then you totally need to!

Would I like a better world, where girls can have a greater say in the matter? Of course! But I am not going to take away their options at the time they actually have to make such decisions just because I want a world where they will have more options. Instead, let us both work to create a world where no one ever need be pressured into a decision they don't want.

I have no argument there. And thank you for keeping this civil, considering how angry I was initially.