Which is why we do not assume everyone is a bad guy, or potential bad guy, unless we have good reason or evidence to suspect them.
I would support many changes in society to be more responsive to youth's needs. You would support more.
In other words, yes, I would support they be treated as full citizens and fully realized human beings, and empowered as such.
But maybe you all should first achieve your goal of youth rights and empowerment, and once that's all set, THEN talk about legalizing adult-child sex.
That is likely the way it's going to work. However, what we are advocating here is the full realization of all youth rights. The only reason anyone thinks we focus on sexual rights first and foremost, outside the context of youth rights in general, is because that takes on particular interest in our circles for obvious political reasons. Nevertheless, many of us are continually talking about youth rights in general. However, that doesn't mean we should continue to support these destructive laws more or less as they are written and carried out today. To me, a half-measure to fight for is Epstein's emancipation test for youths to prove their competence and achieve legal emancipation, with or without parental control, if they so choose.
"Come the revolution, all will be well" is a very dangerous bit of hand-waving.
No, it means "change is needed, and we need to step out of our comfort zone and work to create a better world." Chances need to be taken rather than being petrified into inaction or continued support of the status quo we know simply because we fear change.
As you know, I'm an incrementalist. Achievable changes, one small step at a time, can change society to allow other changes.
Which we are doing, and have been doing. However, that is not the same thing as ignoring our ultimate goals in favor of only discussing our immediate goals. Otherwise, we cease becoming revolutionaries and become reformists instead.
But Peter's the one who made her that way. Saying Margaux could "give as good as she got" is morally outrageous. He screwed up big time. She did the best she could as a child to adapt.
I don't think it's morally outrageous if you accept the potential of children. Marguax could have walked away from Peter, but she chose not to. Instead, she chose to take control of the situation and run the relationship her way, which she did. He proved no match for her in the long run. And he was no match for an already assertive girl like Dara from the get-go.
Susan Clancy, despite her hatred of us, was quite clear that she said maintaining the fiction that sexual abuse (which we can argue both real and manufactured) is something uniquely horrible among all the types of trauma any child could possibly experience, when we readily accept children and recover from horrific traumas related to direct exposure to war violence, natural disasters, near-drownings, etc., is extremely self-centered on the part of the industry. And she was clear that much of the "permanent damage" was the result of iatrogenic factors, even though she was against intergen sexual contact out of principle.
There is an abuse industry, but it's not at the heart of the problem.
Yes, it is. The abuse industry as a combination of political and financial motivations to not only promote the hysteria, but maintain the vicious laws behind it and keep a steady supply of permanent "victims" to use as tools for that purpose. They promoted all the nonsense starting around the beginning of the 1980s, from the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria and "repressed memory" nonsense beginning with the publication of the outrageously disingenuous book Michelle Remembers and the equally lie-ridden McMartin pre-school incident, to be quickly followed by media moguls like Oprah Winfrey profiting off the hysteria in a similar fashion, all the way up to the careerist and opportunist NGOs who currently promote the sex trafficking hysteria, a secular version of the Satanic ritual abuse nonsense.
The fact that kids did not feel harmed at the time but came to feel harmed later does not mean it's due to societal messages.
Yes it is, because it makes no logical sense otherwise. It doesn't happen "just because," it happens because over time they are strongly encouraged to feel that way every single time they read an article or see a news report on the subject, and every time they hear the numerous negative comments from friends and family. And the ones who are "found out" having intergen relationships and pulled through the system need no further explanation.
It could also be due to gaining more information about other people's motives, or their own developing personal morality.
Both of which go back to sociogenic and iatrogenic factors. Their developing morality is heavily influenced by society, as is what they are told about someone's motives in retrospect, or encouraged to assume. What you suggested sets a precedent for me having pre-marital sex with a young woman who was not conservative Christian, but if she chooses to convert years later, she suddenly becomes ashamed of that act in retrospect and becomes "traumatized." That can be used as an excuse to inhibit virtually all sexual relationships, by constantly invoking fear of the ever-uncertain future.
I've raised before the case of the young child who gets talked into exchanging his $20 bill for a shiny quarter. Freely done at the time, regretted later, the adult condemned later -- and nothing to do with internalizing inappropriate societal expectations.
If you invoke shame about such an exchange, what some younger people have described as "survival sex" as explicated by Judith Levine in their book, then that has everything to do with societally created factors being to blame. If we didn't place such a horrendous taboo on sexual activity in general, then we wouldn't shame any type of consensual exchange out of concern someone may think differently about it in the future, as you can never predict what the future might hold, and insisting we be a slave to it in the present justifies just about any type of prohibition on human choice. And regret doesn't logically lead to trauma, unless someone is pushed into viewing it that way. People are not that fragile emotionally, and can deal with a lot worse than that. This is something we do not disagree with unless it has to do with sexuality, because we place such a disproportionate degree of shame and concern on it compared to other, much more readily harmful things. People, especially girls and women, are expected to be traumatized by sexual encounters, so it's no wonder many follow suit in compliance with these expectations.
"Ugh" is not an argument.
It is when I already responded to that :-)
Once again, the old contention that our online communities are the one place where hundreds and possibly thousands of a sample group have congregated through the years which might be utterly unlike the majority of us across the planet. I think that violin you hear might be Chopin's funeral march regarding both civil rights and statistical probability, when you make baseless assumptions like that.
I'm not demonizing you all, I'm recognizing that there are bad guys in the world,
Then maybe we should assume that all men are bad and deny women the right to marry them, just to make sure that the ones who are bad never get the chance to dupe a poor naive woman into walking down that aisle with them. I mean, we have to preemptively censure all to make sure we nullify the ones who are bad, and I'm sure all men with a sense of concern for the well being of women would applaud and readily agree to such a thing, as would all women for their own good. Or is it just MAPs you think have this pervasive problem?
do not get and guys who mean to be good but end up doing harm, and the laws need to be fashioned with them in mind.
Then the laws need to deal with men like that on a case-by-case basis, rather than penalizing and punishing all MAPs and prohibiting all kids pre-emptively as a result, otherwise we set ourselves up for every conceivable type of draconian measure. Rampant distrust of all citizens is the stuff police and surveillance states are made of.
I've tentatively allowed for the occasional good result under the heading of "prosecutorial discretion".
Occasional. Right. So, of course you don't think we're all bad. Just most of us. That makes me feel much better, and you sound much more fair. Thank you!
Now you see why I'm not buying into this, Ethan. For the same reason I do not demand heavy pre-emptive censuring of the many Muslims who live in my neighborhood because some of them might be like the worst of the lot... in numbers none of the other demographics living around me possibly could be!
Always men. But this isn't a misandrist way of looking at it, is it? Just "reality," right? And again, a "great many"? This type of assumption, which refuses to even take into account the empowerment of younger people to prevent this is, again, based on groundless assumption and a cynical, not to mention misandrist, worldview. It's a philosophy and personal bias that in no way should be written into law. But we've been over this many times before.
The number of potential truly beneficial sexual relationships it would allow is tiny,
Here we go again, the true colors of the Crayola deck come out. Misandrist blue, assumptionist red, and absolutist teal-gray. With a bit of fuchsia thrown in for good measure.
and far tinier if we restrict our attention to prepubescents.
And two crayons of bias green, along with another two of assumptionist red.
That is fundamentally why I am anti-legalization.
Yes. All of these assumptions, based on a misandry-heavy mistrust of men in particular but adults in general, and all written into law.
Huge cost, tiny benefit.
I see that is true in the opposite direction you suggest, considering the historical cost of draconian legislation and prohibition.
Neither of us can prove our case.
Meaning, when in doubt, "err on the side of caution," i.e., the negative assumptions. That is not how democracy and freedom works, hence I do not support it. I support giving the benefit of the doubt unless we have good reason not to with individual cases.
I suppose approval of the idea that the IRS audits tax returns now and then is an outrageous and cynical condemnation of all my fellow citizens. Surely almost everyone will file honestly, right?
I do not agree with the IRS, or any legal institution that makes such assumptions or arbitrary penalizations, since that is akin to search and seizures without just cause because someone in every neighborhood is bound to be doing something the police should know about, even if no evidence exists to suggest this is so.
Even if they knew there were no chance of being caught cheating? How cynical of me not to believe that.
It's cynical to assume that there are enough people doing wrong or evil things to enact pre-emptive censuring or prohibition on all of them.
Neither of us can prove our case.
And again, you will argue that justifies the "err on the side of caution" draconian legislation, whereas I will argue that instead calls for benefit of the doubt unless evidence for individual cases presents itself in harmony with America's democratic foundation. And around and around we go until one or the other ultimately prevails, and a world order based on the victor is formed. I know which of the two I'd rather live in, hence the side I take.