"The final comment about using sexual freedom for prostitution is an afterthought, raising an issue but making no pretense of arguing for it. "

.....

"it's a placeholder, a reminder, and an opportunity for the genuinely curious to ask more. I don't make the full argument there as part of the restraint I use so I don't take over the board."

RLY?

"My hunch remains that if you really freed children sexually and removed all their hang-ups and inhibitions, they would use the freedom mostly for prostitution."

Its seems pretty cut and dried to me. You didn't say "unlikely" or "far-fetched." And, until I called you on it, your response of "nothing" wasn't even on the table as a response. "Nothing" is only a decoy placed after the fact to your response that freedom=prostitution.

And there's nothing inherent in the simple declarative sentence to suggest that it isn't a stand-alone. ( Heck, your ENTIRE ouvre at GC might be a placeholder awaiting some massive complete future retraction. ) But we cannot read what you intend to post later. We can only read what you chose to post for reading at present in light of itself and previous posts.

""Lots of sex" wasn't the most precise wording. "Sex for lots of pedophiles" would have been more accurate. I didn't intend it as pejorative; if you're sexually attracted to someone, it's reasonable to want sex with them. But I think it's a stretch to think that explanation has anything to do with attacking Dissident."

I don't know how many times I've said it here that desire DOES NOT equal rape. Wanting sex with someone is usually contingent upon wanting the reciprocation of desire. Its usually an unspoken assumption that you want them free to choose. But HERE it was specifically spoken to you and at great length. That her freedom to chose is paramount. Her "No" is just as valuable as her yes, because it is hers.

It really doesn't matter here just what the nature of the desire is or the outcome so long as the other has freedom and liberty. So I think its a massive stretch in telling a Communist freedom-fighter that coerced monetarized sex should be the response to his discussion about the outcomes of free choice.

"I am only suggesting it as a consequence that some people might find unpleasant and they could consider it in evaluating whether they want to agree with Dissident's vision or not."

And since you knew you were misrepresenting his vision, you are impugning him.

"No children today are anywhere near freed of the sexual hang-ups and inhibitions that are part of our society, so we wouldn't expect to see an interest in prostitution with children we know and I certainly didn't. The hunch is not based on direct observation of children in those circumstances, but based on a knowledge of children and what would happen in an environment no child has been in so far."

I really don't believe that is the case.

You could equally claim that none are freed from our Heterocentrist Culture nor its Pedophiliophobic distortions; and then claim that there cannot be any Pedos as a result.

Some buy into the cultural values more and some reject them more. Sexual revolutions aren't moral revolutions so much as legal ones. Each is happening on a different level.

When we promote a child's agency it should be clear that regardless of what is happening in the realm of internal morality; we are talking about removing the legal apparatus of prohibition. And given the massive legal apparatus for protection OUTSIDE of statutory ageist punishments, we are talking about both promoting her rights and protecting her rights.

There are many real individual girls who've made their choices clear by flouting the law. Others ( who I have known ) have made it clear what they would do, but for the existence of unjust laws. I don't need to know how they would behave in a cultural landscape that is unknown, because I know how they would prefer to behave right now. And its easy for them to imagine the absence of the law, because the punishing authorities who await them lie off-stage.

I know of no girls or women in my life who are interested in prostitution. None who are interested in it at present. None who are interested but inhibited by legal mechanisms. We can only start with the known. If we prefer to start with the most hysterical fearmongering scare-scenario and then work our way backwards unrealistic assumption by unrealistic assumption we will never arrive at present reality.

Sure, its great if you believe that no vision is clear enough that a few imaginary hob-goblins cannot improve it when you present it for another's consideration.

But ultimately there is Dissident's post, your reply; and your revelation that you had to invert his entire premise in order for the readers of a Communist freedom-fighter to arrive at monetarized coerced sex as a feature of "agreeing with his vision."

I'm now hopeful, given your claim that I cannot read any post WITHOUT anticipating future ones; that this will all be the preamble to a complete retraction on your part at a later date.

Dante