"Dante, reading your comments about me is somewhat akin to wading through a cloud of mosquitoes.

I'll admit that there seems to be a diffuse cloud there of things both annoying and impossible to localize. Maybe if you didn't move the goalpost everytime you speak or shift reality for each analogy there might be something to pin down.

As it is though, these statements about reality tell me much of what I need to know despite their incoherence.

"I think that a prepubescent girl's expression of her free and unfettered and guilt-free sexuality is primarily: nothing."

And I believe that it is something. What that something is, is up to each girl. I have met some. I have read others. Some I will never know. But each of them is sexual and each of them has an agency. Attempts to deny any girl in order to generalize about all are rather creepy morally speaking.

"My position is that sexuality for females is today very often tied to ideas of love and relationship and meaning over time, not just what feels good."

Frankly, when I want a female's opinion, I'll go to her. If you really think you can speak for an adult female, then I pity those who dissent from your opinion. And I know quite a few who do, but then again, they're real people too, not generalizations invented to make a facile point.

"I believe that most prepubescent girls don't naturally look for a sexual expression of their feelings even when they like someone a lot."

Ah. "Most" again. The "most" that denies the specific. No wonder it sometimes sounds like ( despite your parenthood ) you have never known any girls. Because you choose only to speak of what you don't know. By definition, you cannot know "most girls." Now if you spoke of the "some," you might be able to say something that wasn't necessarily false. But it might not allow for the sweeping generalization.......

"I set myself as a thought experiment what it would be like if we transformed society so those things weren't true and pedophiles could realistically look forward to lots of sex with girls."

Why assume the necessity of "lots of sex with girls?" Why even go for "what Pedos want?" ( Presuming that GirlLovers value this above other things; and, of course, fabricating a Pedo opinion you neither share nor have seen here. )

You assume too much. And in creating these preconditions, you steer completely away from the thesis you previously claimed to generate this outcome, which was; "if you really freed children sexually and removed all their hang-ups and inhibitions." Not only have you shifted the goalpost yet again, you impugn Dissident by crediting him with all these assumptions in your reply to him. I know him better than that. So, I though, did you by now. But your conditions for answering him are to read into his request for freedom, an unstated request that freedom be cast aside in favor of "lots of sex."

This clearly tells me about the levels of intellectual dishonesty and malicious assumption that go into your replies here. Several folks, myself included, have stated time and again that they value only freedom and a child's agency. We've even specifically stated that we realistically expect to never see a girl chose us. But we value her free choice no matter what its result. And yet you cannot even reply to us directly when we speak to you directly. You are clearly having an argument with a fictitious bogeyman and substituting his words for ours in your responses.

I am now more convinced than ever that your need to misrepresent others at VirPed is no accident.

Please don't bother to reply unless you can see how interpolating unspoken malicious assumptions into simply stated questions is unethical. Or how responding to these unspoken claims in lieu of the real ones ( without acknowledging that you're doing this ) is "moving the goalpost."

Yes, it seems like a cloud of mosquitos. But beyond that cloud you have hallucinated is a fixed coherent point still awaiting a reply. If you're ready to be honest, it still awaits.

Dante