...as is the case with most people who are "confused" over this issue, and thus consider freedom to be a possible enemy we just fight against, all the while defending some forms of oppression as actually being "freedom" (i.e., mistaking "freedom from..." with "freedom to...").

There remains no small controversy about the ability of some minors to meaningfully consent.

With the current anti-youth cultural attitudes and bigotry, their near-total lack of civil rights and lack of legal ability to meaningfully engage in this debate themselves, along with the current pro-parental rights advocates (i.e., "traditional family values" crowd) in the still reigning (but rapidly faltering) right-wing elements, why do you consider the existence of this controversy to be so profound? The controversy over the ability of ALL blacks to be competant doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., was quite strong a mere 40 years ago.

Moreover, what about the ability of SOME adults (and I'm not talking about mentally retarded adults) to give meaningful consent, simply because so many adults are simply morons who cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag? Why do you not address this, as well? Can it be because the anti propaganda doesn't extend in this direction enough, so it's better to direct your "confusion" in the direction that the political and cultural winds are blowing, so to speak? Do you also agree that perhaps it may be "bad" for at least SOME homosexual or bisexual adults to engage in mutually consensual sexual activity, particularly if a constitutional ammendment was passed in America to ban it?

It's only fringey wingnuts like Califia and Paglia who seem to be serious about complete abolition of AOC (and sometimes not even then). There is altogether too little reliable knowledge about adult-minor sexual contact to warrant anything so rash as revolution. If you believe you have been wronged by the state, you can redress it in the courts, which is what they're for.

Actually, you're VERY wrong there, and once again your "confusion" on the issue is leading you astray, IG. Are you aware that many youth liberation organizations, most of which have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the MAA community, such as ASFAR, favor abolishing the AOC laws entirely in favor of laws that take every instance on a case-by-case basis, and almost without exception take into account the opinions of the youth involved in the situation? You seem to have ignored this, as most people with such doubts are wont to do (dismissing the YL movement entirely, that is). Hence, it's not just a few "fringy wingnuts" that are in favor of totally abolishing the AOC laws as we know them, and as you would know if you read less selectively and didn't ignore the YL organizations out of hand.

Further, you note that we do not know enough about adult/minor sexual contact to warrent a "revolution," and I'm sure that you would prefer that this remain the case, because then you could further ignore the fact that you're totally wrong, and that many such studies were conducted during the 70's when they weren't suppressed by various government agencies. You also ignore the studies made by Judith Levine and Sharon Thompson about young girls' relationships with adult men, nor do you consider the much maligned Rind study, which the government moved heaven and earth to get banned. Moreover, what about the studies made during the 40's by Albert Kinsey that suggested the same thing, and caused him to conclude, based upon years of pain-staking research, that AOC laws were not designed to protect youths, but primarily designed to protect custom. Suppression and/or the dismissal of such studies does not equal lack of information about them, and you need to keep this in mind. These objective studies have all strongly suggested that the age of the people involved did not have any effect on how the younger person reacted to it as long as such liasons were mutually consensual, and there is no evidence to substantiate the "possible long-term psychological consequences" claptrap. Do you favor the continual government and media suppression of such studies? If you do, then you need to face the fact that the anti stance is primarily based upon abstract and subjective morals rather than concrete and objective facts.

You also ignore the avalanche of evidence making it clear that the suppression of youths, and their forced disempowerment by the government and culture working in concert, is precisely the thing that put's them in the position where they suffer the vast bulk of actual abuse by adults of all kinds, including sexual abuse. Yet you suggest that a revolution is not in order? I think you need to see past the propaganda and the doubts it engenders within you.

There are some serious differences between adult-adult sex and adult-child sex--namely the absence of the consent controversy.

Indeed, and this is why that controversy needs to be confronted and tackled, rather than ignored and aquiesced to.

How do you propose surmounting the public's outrage when they discover your advocacy of sexual self-determination for kids?

The same way civil rights activists of decades past surmounted widespread public outrage to extend rights of self-determination to blacks and women.

No doubt you feel smug when you reduce all dissenting girllovers to cowards, pessimists and victims of propaganda. This is just plain dumb.

The way he said it was indeed a bit harsh, but let's look at it from a more objective point of view.

cowards

Not necessarily, though I will note that moving in lock step with the majority doesn't suggest courage, either. I'm not suggesting that either cowardice or the simple lack of courage is what motivates you, however.

pessimists

Again, not necessarily, because I have never seen you play the "'cause it's never gonna happen" card before, as some other posters have from time to time.

victims of propaganda

In this case, I do indeed agree with Connoisseur, because I have frequently seen you ignore contrary information available, ignore the YL movement, and basically use common cultural beliefs as the basis for your arguments, rather than any sort of objective reasoning. In fact, most of what you say is in concert with typical anti propaganda; there has been more than one occasion where you have called something that I or another pro-choicer has said into question, claiming that we did not explain our points in enough detail to make them valid in your eyes, when I believe that we did exactly that; when you were asked to elaborate by me, you refused to do so in every instance thus far. As such, I see no evidence to suggest that your arguments are not primarily based upon cultural attitudes cum propaganda that are behind the bulk of your professed doubts on this matter.

Your friend,

--Dissident