GirlChat #724033

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

The issue is whether they truly RESPECT us & kids

Posted by Dissident on Friday, April 27 2018 at 6:44:36PM
In reply to The issue was whether they hate us. They don't. posted by EthanEdwards on Friday, April 27 2018 at 1:39:05PM

Reduced penalties and prosecutorial discretion, for starters. And more broadly, sympathy and acceptance for those who do not act sexually with children.

That isn't bad, of course, but it's not enough. It still creates a situation where witch hunting and demonization is the norm, and both deprives kids of choice and continues to deny an empowered status that grants them full citizenship. Just like, as I noted before, we have yet to find a way to start a war without incurring very serious collateral damage, and without eroding the rights of everyone.

Those are grand generalities.

They are anything but. Civil liberties and full citizenship are major concerns, especially since denying them to one group sets up a very nasty precedent to later denying them to other groups on the basis of Nanny State rationalizations.

There are different answers for different rights, and since age is a continuum, in practice it is about where to draw lines.

The law should not be drawn in an absolutist, arbitrary fashion, or you're asking for injustice on all levels... or not caring, whatever the case may be. The drawn lines should be evidence for harm and evidence for lack of consent. If you cannot find either, then you accept the word and feelings of the people involved. If one of the pair says one thing, and the other says another, then you observe due process and investigate.

I would tend to favor easier emancipation procedures than are typically in place today. I think it's ridiculous to punish teens for distributing selfies.

I sincerely credit you for that, Ethan, but that is what happens when you vote for some restrictions of this nature. You are not going to avoid serious ramifications, because prohibition and vice laws of every sort has historically always proved exponential, and has always gone too far. The end result has always been a need to eliminate it altogether and find another, democratic way of dealing with problems.

I don't even make any grand pronouncements about kids being unable to consent to sex -- though I think it's good policy for adults to know they might face criminal charges for sex with someone much younger.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons most pro-choicers are against breaking those laws, and the policy of GC and all MAP support groups are openly against crossing the legal line.

I am certainly opposed to making kids feel bad about their sexual experiences with adults if they don't come to that themselves.

Which is why slut-shaming on all levels has to stop, otherwise society is complicit for the sociogenic factors that are a major factor in the harm inflicted. However, the protocols for the legal situation is going to cause iatrogenic harm on many levels. What happened to Fayla is quite typical. Trying to create a nicer, kinder way of dealing with essentially the same prohibition laws are not going to keep them "in check," because they are always a step towards justifying increasingly greater prohibitions. You give such laws an inch, then they will invariably take a yard and beyond.

If the litmus test is whether adults can know they are legally in the clear when having sex with a willing young teen, then I'm on the mainstream side -- but it seems no accident how that one particular right is of such importance to many pedophiles.

It's of such importance to MAPs and mesophiles in particular because it's a natural form of relationship for us, and a way to fulfill romantic love to a complete extent. There is nothing inherently selfish or ignoble about this, because this desire is common to all demographics, and none of them are evil because of it. There is nothing inherently despotic or corrupt about reasonable sexual desire as long as genuine respect and consideration for others accompanies it. And it's of concern to youths in general due to the matters of choice and empowerment. Just because many individuals among them may not want to say "yes" to such a choice doesn't mean they could care less if they are denied the right, because it's an important matter of principle.

Did you mistype something? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Then I think you misunderstood the typing. That meant they are "friendly" to being interviewed and supported by "liberal" news media sites that have to answer to sponsors and maintain readers.

Do they take heat from some quarters for their more liberal views? Yes. But they do it anyway.

Not nearly as much heat as those who do not side with the consensus view based on their research. I have yet to see a researcher who was either safely ensconced with the consensus view on intergen sex, or nebulously on the fence, have Congress condemn their peer-reviewed scientific research or outright destroy their career. Instead, the media seems eager to listen to them and virtually only them, touting them as the "foremost" experts on the topic while all but ignoring the others as well as any point of controversy surrounding the former's research. They may get some heat, but they are acceptable even if not embraced.

As for your and Edward's rebuttal,

"Edward"? Is that what you call Ed??

as I said on Tom's blog, it boils down to their not agreeing with the pro-legalization view. And as I said over there, I had already said that.

Yes, and our rebuttal made it clear what that makes them less than nuanced. They could look at all the data and even decree no official position on the issue, at least until more data comes in, but they want to be either acceptable or vaguely so.

Yeah, you don't like them. But they like us, and that's what we were talking about.

Correction: They like those of us who toe the line on the legalization - youth liberation issue. Save for those who are on the fence like Mike Bailey and a few others like him, they rarely have anything to do with pro-choicers, as opposed to accepting MAPs of all ideologies, regardless of who they agree with. That's because consorting with pro-choicers will not help their career status any, and they know that, just as Danny Whittaker is painfully aware of that from the standpoint of a journalist. Except he sees himself as having no stake in liking any of us, at least not openly at this time. Maybe in ten years, if things change enough; we'll see.


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?