I looked at Epstein enough to convince myself it was irrelevant to the question at hand,

Since you do not like what Epstein has to say, of course you are going to say that. Others who are genuinely interested in what he has to say, and the historical data he collected, will glean much insight from it.

and will not waste my time on the others without a more specific reference as in a quoted passage -- relating to prepubescent girls choosing sexual activity for its own sake and the rest of society approving of that.

I am talking about choosing sexual contact with an adult, or even peers, because they were attracted to and trusted the person they chose it with. And did not fear extreme repercussions by adults who controlled them for making such decisions. By enforcing asexuality on kids, obviously you are creating a society where they cannot be open about it.

Secondly, just because you may have a day off on the weekend doesn't mean that counts for other people's jobs, Ethan. I am not going to put that much of my paid work aside to flip through hundreds of pages of text to find specific quotes. What I am going to do, for those who are willing to take the time to do the reading and are actually objective (which, of course, is not you) I will provide links to numerous articles that IPCE has collected on this topic that appeared over the years in many respected peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Human Sexuality.

https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/ch_sx_dev.htm

https://www.ipce.info/library/web-article/historical-roots-sexual-oppression

Now, read the important studies by clinical psychologist Allie C. Kirkpatrick, who has researched child sexuality from a variety of avenues, including interactions with adults, albeit including a rare but crucially important focus on girls, rather than exclusively boys; and including pre-pubescent girls rather than limiting the study to adolescent girls only.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812441?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The abstract of this particular article sums up much of her conclusions: "Some of the findings challenge commonly held beliefs and have far-reaching implications for the helping professions and others who study human sexuality."

It's pricey to download, but there are ways of getting past a paywall that I am not going to share here (it's not hard to find via Google).

And then there is this very important book by Kirkpatrick: https://www.amazon.com/Long-range-Effects-Adolescent-Sexual-Experiences/dp/0805809147/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1534021780&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=Allie+C.+Kilpatrick+-+childhood+sexual+studies

Again, pricey to buy, even in digital form, but less pricey used versions are available from independent sellers, and it's more than worth the price. At least, it will be for those who want to do an objective reading on the topic.

Yes, in the past childhood was conceived differently, and some kids succeeded. A lot of others starved or failed miserably.

As did many adults. It was hard for everyone back then who wasn't born wealthy. But kids had opportunities to move beyond the situation of their parents as soon as they proved capable. Today, they are forced to share whatever the fortunes their parents may be. And if they do manage to earn a decent living--say, in the entertainment business--their parents and other adult agents control their earnings.

When you suggest that I would see the light if only I saw these brave, noble youths of yesteryear, it feels akin to saying I need to accept Jesus as my savior.

Wrong, Ethan. I suggest you will most certainly not "see the light" no matter what evidence is every thrown before you, because you made up your mind a long time ago and your goal is not to come to an objective conclusion but to argue the point for maintaining the status quo you favor, no matter the consequences that may come for kids as a result. Those would be acceptable consequences to you.

And I'm hardly talking about anything akin to a religious epiphany here. I am talking about being swayed by actual evidence. But you will never allow yourself to go there, because that is not the purpose of these delightful exchanges on your end.

Giggle. I suppose you would say that.

Considering that is clearly the case based on a good amount of empirical observations of how you and your ilk tend to roll, Ethan, yes I totally would say that.

It is true that people who have been thinking about these issues for a long time are unlikely to change their views, because new evidence is so rarely truly new and astounding.

You're giving them too much credit, Ethan. It's because such evidence is so often suppressed with censorship or (in one famous case) every single conservative and liberal in Congress voting to unanimously condemn a peer-reviewed meta-analysis that has stood up to subsequent scientific scrutiny. Or those who publish such studies being threatened to have their jobs taken away (as Harris Mirkin did), or even receive death threats. Or because mainstream outlets generally refuse to publish articles that might piss off their sponsors, who pay all the bills and thus control much of the discourse. While we're on a roll acknowledging the empirical evidence of how our media and culture works, the one you see yourself as a beneficiary of, let's make all of that clear.

So, yes, people tend to continue thinking a certain way when dissenting voices are suppressed and silenced, and thus easily overlooked even when they do get published. People are also notoriously resistant to change no matter the evidence presented.

You are the one who is committed to an ideological position

And you aren't? Ethan, this is the first time I feel okay with coming right out and calling you a liar. Because you must certainly are if you say you have no ideological position and are committed to objectivity.

and cherry-picks studies to support that view

Says the guy who promotes only researchers who says what he wants to hear, and whose research is given wide focus simply because they are "safe" for the sponsors while many others who come to conclusions that may suggest a change in the status quo is required are marginalized. Accusing someone else of cherry-picking is a major case of the pot calling the kettle black, and makes you laughably hypocritical and disingenuous. Not to mention delusional if you seriously believe any of what you said in this post.

and does a lot of arm-waving to even make them relevant.

More like pointing them out and letting interested readers know they are out there, so they can read them and decide for themselves. Something you would never do, since censorship and marginalization of those whom the mainstream disagrees with are how they maintain their mainstream views.

But of course I know you don't see it that way.

But of course I think you do know exactly what you are doing, but you will rationalize continuing to do it anyway. Stop lying to us and making laughably hypocritical statements if you want us to take you remotely seriously as having a legitimate argument to make. Just come right out and say, "I don't like the worldview you represent and I do not care if it might make a better world, or if younger people actually do deserve their full set of rights as people, or whether or not they can actually handle it! I don't want that, and neither does the majority I long to be accepted by, and damn it, we're going to do everything we can to delay any possible change at least for the duration of our lives!" That would at least be honest.