"My statement is ambiguous, I realize. From context I should think it is clear that I mean "a girl can choose WHETHER to have sex with an adult" and not "a girl can choose AFFIRMATIVELY to have sex with an adult". Not sure if that was your misunderstanding or not. If so, it seems an uncooperative and obtuse misreading."

Wow.

Now I have no idea of your meaning because I can read no meaning into the statement at all.

If every possible case ( both yes and no ) are incorporated into the "whether" ( as in whether or not ) then there is no alternative which might leave her will thwarted. And her expressed will contains all possibilities. This then leaves no room for the "lump of protoplasm" claim. And renders the accusation spurious.

OTOH, if by "whether to" you don't include a negative choice option, then I can't see an alternative reading to equating that with an affirmative choice.

And if you're claiming that nullifying her choice here is a pro-choice stance, then I don't see how it is. Nor how it fails to contribute to other forms of out-sourcing her will over her body to adults ( say Molesters? )

( The freedom to choose what sort of sandwich to eat for lunch didn't really prepare Soviet citizens for the day when most aspects of their lives were up to them. Running up against bans on sexual self-determination is pretty rare for most girls [ but no less traumatic. ] The educational system is a much more common reminder to children that adults determine what they will do for the bulk of their waking hours. But since so many kids manage to footdrag, fake sick and game the system one way or the other, the nullification of sexual self-determination is a much more severe and intolerant demand that she accept adult control of her body. )

Either way you've chosen to construe "whether," you've completely lost me. And claiming that I'm obtuse here doesn't help when you're using words contrary to their accepted usage. Ferinstance;

"The natural interpretation of my statement is justified by my saying in some other thread that girls have choice and will and agency, and your complaining that if this doesn't include the freedom to say yes to sex with an adult, then I am not granting them any significant freedoms at all."

Choice ( noun: ) an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
The right or ability to make, or the possibility of making, such a choice.
A course of action thing or person that is selected or decided upon.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be willfully obtuse. But I cannot see how a rigged election where the dictator/incumbent is the only "choice" constitutes meaningful choice in any proper usage of the term.

You claim that girls have a choice in this "yes/no" decision we all make. And then you remove the element that constitutes the alternative. How is that "choice?"

I might understand you if you'd admit that you're against a girls choice. But that you aren't consistently so. And that you think that your anti-choice stances don't significantly impact her life, or affect her agency in other areas. ( Am I even remotely close? 'Cause I can't tell. )

---

And again, you haven't bothered to source the quote in which occasioned the claim that; "she is a defective blob of protoplasm who can't think."

I argue that whether she exercises an option or doesn't, it is her choice. And that further, supporting her unfettered "no" helps molester-proof her. I neither see nor want a pliant child.

So it would be very nice if you would cite the quote you are referring to so that I might both be allowed to defend it and explain it. The archives are available. And since you claim that I seem ONLY capable of thinking this way, you ought to be decent enough to offer me the opportunity to do so.

---

But here I have come to expect that you won't.

Hajduk's many requests for you to "man-up" and cite still go unanswered despite months of opportunity for you to reply at your leisure.

Here too I suspect that the accusations of "Mr. Hyde" and "Ethan Bashing" play into this. You ask civility and decency of those who disagree with you, but you refuse to extend the same back.

On the rare occasion that others infer a motive or ascribe a meaning you hadn't intended to an Ethan statement, they first cite the statement for context. This then allows you to claim that its a misreading and to offer an explanation. And even if your detractor isn't swayed, this allows you to demonstrate their misunderstanding to all.

But this constitutes bullying to you. And yet you prefer to refuse to cite anything when asked to do so. Further you also overtly manufacture ideas to ascribe to others; even going so far as to assume that they privately hold unprovable motives which run contrary to every publicly expressed sentiment. "They say it, but they don't mean it."

Such tilting at windmills might just seem like dirty pool in a public forum where debate allows others to see through this. But you also do the same from your tower at VirPed where no one may defend themselves from such cowardly attacks.

At GC you ask that the pro-choicers "agree to disagree" as a mark of civility. At VirPed no such thing is tolerated. At GC you talk about the need for both sides to be present in the debate. At VirPed no such thing is tolerated. And here, you resort to Ethanisms; but when anyone seemingly encroaches on such territory ( even if only to do so in a way as to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself ) you claim that they're bullying you.

I am still awaiting the quote that occasioned the "protoplasm" accusation.

Though if your explanation resorts to such Orwellian doublespeak as a "choice" over sexual expression which is not binary ( or greater ) but which is a "monopole;" then I suspect that I will be accused of being uncooperative if I cannot wrap my head around such an idiosyncratic usage.

Dante