"Children often masturbate from a very early age, curious experimentation comes later, while typically interest in pleasurable sexuality with another person comes later."

Except where it doesn't occur in that order. In Emma Goldman's case being sexually stimulated by another ( albeit without his knowledge ) precedes masturbation. But hey, why ruin a perfectly good unproven generalization by talking about real human experiences?

"Historical examples of girls being sexual from a young age are not helpful. In those cases, what was involved was the girl being married off. Or perhaps her being a sexual plaything of others. I don't think any of them involve a girl's freely expressing her sexual choice."

I would expect that with your abysmal ignorance of history that you would discredit the examples history provides to counter your claims. And yet you want to have it both ways. You argue that history is not relevant when it counters you but that it is relevant ( as in your speculations about being "married off" or a "sexual plaything," ) when it might support you. The intellectually honest thing is to follow the evidence where it leads, not to alternately accept it or reject it as it illustrates your thesis. And certainly its an indication of intellectual bankruptcy to spurn actual evidence in favor of mere self-serving speculation.

Of course you have placed yourself in the untenable position of making an absolutist claim that there are no helpful historical examples of a girl freely expressing her sexual choice. At which point you futilely try to stack up all the evidence of a claim which nobody disputes; that girls were and are often coerced and constrained in their free expression of sexuality. But no matter how often this has occurred there are also cases where they weren't. And just one is sufficient to rebuff the claim. Perhaps Goldman's? Oh, I forgot that you also reserve the right to ignore every specific claim in order to sustain the generalization.

"I don't think Dante's concern about the injustice to children gets much support from most people because it's an injustice that is corrected over time. First you're a child, and may suffer some limitations. Some of that is inherent, because you really do start out pretty helpless. But you know you will be an adult shortly."

Indeed. And there's nothing wrong with slavery either so long as there's social mobility and the possibility of buying your freedom. There's nothing quite so reaffirming of an arbitrary social inequality as the ability to be conferred a transfer by decree. In Medieval society all this ownership of people was further "validated" by numerous ranks, titles and stratifications.

That freed slaves bought slaves is an unfortunate black-mark on human morality. I suppose it shows that there is no ennobling quality to suffering. But merely that it tends to brutalize and desensitize.

Just as the schooling system was created by industrial robber-barons along military lines in order to create semi-literate cannon and factory fodder; so too the training of children to the yoke not only creates obedient drones, but worse yet it creates adults who believe they have "arrived." Proof that even the least slave still has a bit of "property" they can practice owning.

The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated just how quickly an arbitrary granting or denial of power can make those with arbitrary power believe that both the power and the obedience are deserved.

I would go further and argue that this becomes an opiate of the masses. Get enough people concerned with controlling assigned "wards," and those above them can do almost anything to them. They are less likely to notice their captivity if they, in turn, are captors.

"On the other hand, adults want the best for their children, they remember what it was like to be a child and based on that concern and what they knew then and what they know now, they set up some rules that work fairly well."

Most don't seem to remember very well. Heck, I know I have the fairly common early childhood amnesia. I cannot recall much before the age of 6. And even then its pretty spotty until about 11.

Of course we know age-of-majority to be immoral and wrong as this supposed gaining of wisdom magically ceases somewhere between 18 and 21 ( despite more brain development. ) When Kennedy was elected at age 43 many believed that he was too immature for a role demanding a more seasoned and wiser mind. And the Constitution itself recognizes that the 35 year old is in a better position to rule over the 28 year old. Many eastern cultures keep the process going by using tradition to force the younger to defer to their elders for life.

If the age of majority confers wisdom and a better perspective by which we constrain the younger for their benefit; then surely those further past it should have veto power over the choices of younger adults. But we know that this is wrong and immoral when applied to one old enough to physically resist the tyranny. Why, then, does picking on those smaller than us suddenly make it wise and just?

And, of course, some do remember the injustice better, don't feel that a youth is a semi-human creature becoming a person, and reject the notion that the arbitrary powers conferred upon them by society were earned just because they reached an arbitrary natal anniversary.

"But the issue keeps arising in a group like this because of our intense interest in the idea that a girl might want to freely and happily engage with us sexually. For us the simple expedient of her waiting a few years is no good, because then she is no longer attractive to us personally."

False and false.

Speak for yourself or cite the person you slander here? You do have the courage to cite your source or desist from spreading the slur, don't you?

You already know that there is no "us" for the individual. She will never choose us as "us."

No Pedo has ever argued that a child will take out a classified "gerontophile youth seeks any Pedophile." Love exists between people, not demographics. This is why you have to dismiss what people want. And why you knowingly repeat the Anti's falsehoods here about Pedos not wanting love, but wanting a demographic.

We know that promoting this false monster is a matter of policy for VirPed. But please cite a GC poster for your claim or desist from making the false claim.

At the very least you might have the intellectual honesty to use "you" in the accusation where we know full well that by "our" and "us" you exclude yourself and speak for nobody else who is here.

Jousting with hobgoblins is what you resort to. Its time to cite and come back to reality.

Dante







• ( http link ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
[Anonymouse]