"But now we're back to focussing on your imagined assumption that kid's libbers have base motives."

"It will be an attractive ideology to those sexually attracted to children that on average would skew their evaluation of its merits."

So too is Democracy, Women's Rights and anything which encourages the idea that individuals have a will apart from their role in a preconceived social script which denies agency. You can't misinterpret sexual overtures if Women are asexual, or if sexuality is solely an artifact of marriage ( and then a "conjugal right" indistinguishable from rape. )

But most folk can see that recognizing agency doesn't tell you what someone chooses. And that recognizing female choice and female desire actually results in fewer rapes rather than more.

So tell us again why an argument which makes her rejection seem more clear-cut encourage molesters more than a structure which claims that her "yes" and her "no" are the same thing?

And again, here the egotism is just so overarching that the lack of concern for preventing molestation is palpable. Its really not all about us. Really, we just don't matter that much. Her autonomy is not about us. It never is, even if she incidentally chooses one of us its not about us.

Why you need to hobble children and deny their choices is beyond me. That you can't see how this delivers them into the hands of molesters shows a profound ignorance of how molesters act ( as seen in both victim accounts [ Tiger, Tiger ] and Molester accounts [ Conversations With A Pedophile. ] ) And it demonstrates a callous egotism which places self-promoting an image created to solve our PR issues above a girls safety.

"Some of the different perceptions may be that the paradigmatic children I'm thinking about are 3, 4, or 5 years old -- as my examples with shiny objects should suggest. You may be thinking predominantly of older ones. I don't know what age Ellen was when she came into your life. I was with my girls from the beginning."

Sorry, I've never met a paradigmatic child; only the flesh and blood kind. You were a child and a teen. So was I. I've raised 9 and 11 on up. I've spent time with family friends' kids who are younger. And I've heard the stories about how Julia's parenting techniques reflected the realities of Ellen and Janie at 2 and 3.

( Though we should keep in mind that the children young enough to slake your needs for paradigms are a bit on the younger end of the range for many Pedos. )

Its a shame we don't have more Pedo parents here to set you straight. But if your girls taught you anything, your "paradigms" are so far fetched they betray no sign that you have daughters. And yes, the "lunchbox" swap is recounted from my end of being a six year old, not from having parented one. But its dirt common and has the advantage of happening in the real world; not in one where children are incapable of learning from experience anything they cannot be lured away from with candy or sparkles.

"Basically decent grown men lie and cheat and contort reality to get sex with women,"

"That was a careless phrasing on my part. Let me try again as "Basically decent grown men present themselves in an unsustainably positive way, lie about their long-term intentions or studiously avoid figuring out their actual long-term intentions to get sex with women."

Not very careless insofar as your "rewrite" is effectively the same. They misrepresent themselves intentionally, knowingly conceal their goals and make an effort to practice deception in order to gain sexual access that something other than fraud could not obtain.

You still seem to have an intensely misanthropic view of men and decency.

And I don't believe that anyone needs to be naive or a pollyanna to disagree that this is neither common to men, nor the sort of thing that parents are immune from in trying to get their own way.

I'm not concerned with those in the child's sphere of influence who know that they can encourage good choices by presenting options and by sharing experience without lying to her. I'm concerned with those who deny choices and lie to cover this up. And who believe that they lead her by restricting her and denying her access to information she isn't "ready for." They hide things "for her own good" because they don't trust her to act in her own good.

"I don't see how your assumption that some are self-deceiving ( without any proof required ) promotes anything. You single out Peds for this, without applying this human flaw to either parents or LEOs. If you believed that it extended to other adults then you would surely promote a girl's independence from their selfish manipulations of her that might cause harm or mental anguish."

"This is a board of people who are sexually attracted to girls. If they go astray, the danger that posters here specifically pose is one of sexual activity. The web is full of boards where people can discuss what is best for children in other respects. People here rarely post about their parental dilemmas or career dilemmas as law-enforcement personnel."

RLY. The entire planet does not revolve around us, or around our fantasies.

Fantasies aren't actions for Heteros, Homos, or Pedos. We're human in that regard; and thus our concern for girls safety is a human thing.

But if you choose to bring parents and LEOs into it as the other parties she must defer her agency to, then of course the fact that they're human too matters.

You claim that Father knows best when he chooses against sex ( with an option to have chosen otherwise. ) But then you claim that the choice otherwise cannot be allowed due to potential future regret.

Either way the flaw is in thinking that our desires matter. They don't. Her agency has never been about us.

She will make an informed choice. She will do so with the information that works and which comes from those who haven't lied to her already and abused her trust. The only way that she can be unaware of iatrogenic harm is for people lying to her that her parents and the police would never conspire to harm her. We know better.

And it is true that some could place her in harm's way inadvertently because they believe the lie. But we know better. The proof is frequently cited here. And thus no adult who cares for her safety who visit GC can remain ignorant of that fact; unless of course they keep reading those "society has its reasons" rationales of why such cruelty to a child is protection.

And if anyone no longer cares about preventing harm; then they're the sort whose ill-intentions can best be prevented by promoting her independence and by quashing the submissive deferential LG that appeals to molesters.

"While I ultimately found quite a bit to fault my parents for, they were quite liberal with regard to sexual matters, staying out late, drugs, etc. My peers were rebelling against restrictive rules, but I had little to rebel against. I was rather shy, so I didn't take the opportunity for significant friendships with other adults. But whatever those adults offered, I was not psychologically in a position to question my parents' beliefs until I was off at college."

Similar story in some regards. Not many rules to rebel against but too shy to do much rebelling anyway. OTOH, I had only a handful of friends, but I did tend to also bond with many of my teachers; I even invited one of my HS teachers to my wedding. As for questioning my parents beliefs, they wouldn't have had it any other way. They believed that matters of fact were robust enough to be questioned, and often tried to expose me to many views; hence being raised Atheist but having more exposure to the Bible and the other religion's scriptures than most kids.

As my mum saw it, knowing the Bible was both a good background for living in a predominantly Xtian country, as well as a necessary cultural backdrop for getting all the references in literature and even everyday phrases. Knowing something about Buddhism and Hinduism too was to expand the notions beyond the culture I was raised in.

Dante