a girl can choose WHETHER to have sex with an adult

is concerned with whether society will honor her positive choice by not punishing an adult who engages in sexual activity with her. I assume that is what upsets you so much is that society will presently not honor that choice, and the failure to do so is taken as a far more sweeping indictment of her abilities and power than I think warranted. (The Enlightened Anti-contact position "EACP" (TM) is that the girl should not be punished herself for engaging in sexual behavior with an older person). I can't see anyone seriously doubting that young teen girls have well-developed feelings and opinions on many subjects, often subtle and with good supporting reasons. And the EACP is against prosecuting an adult man unless a girl agrees with it.

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.

My memory is that these were questions where disagreements about the broader context were most important and there was little hope of sorting them out. If there are some you'd like me to reconsider, I'm happy to listen. These involved citing science, not citing GC posts?


But you also do the same from your tower at VirPed where no one may defend themselves from such cowardly attacks.

I'm baffled. I can't recall ever initiating what someone would call a cowardly attack. Anyone is free to write to virpeds@gmail.com, VP member or not. No one that I can recall has complained from even a safe, anonymous distance about being the subject of an attack, cowardly or otherwise.

I've explained numerous times that VP and GC are not symmetrical organizations. In a post at b4u-act, I raised a hypothetical group called "Miserable Pedophiles" who reject the idea that any pedophile could feel OK about his attraction and that such discussion would not be allowed and no one who felt that way should join. I noted that with its more restrictive charter, I would not be welcome there but would not feel I had any cause for complaint. They would be welcome at VP and could make their pro-misery arguments.

At GC you ask that the pro-choicers "agree to disagree" as a mark of civility. At VirPed no such thing is tolerated.

An occasional person who joins insists on raising pro-contact points. We don't abuse them or call them names. We respectfully insist they leave if they can't follow the rules, but I think it qualifies as agreeing to disagree.