Ok, some points to think about. What makes us think that there is only ONE way our culture must be headed towards? Is there only ONE right way for us all to live?

Actually, as quantum mechanics suggests, there may be a near infinite amount of futures that spring from every single moment, but we, of course, are aware of only one--the one in which we are in right here, right now.

If this is true, then there is also a near infinite number of cultural paradigms that are being created and destroyed in the different realities in which we exist, meaning it is not unreasonable to assume that there is at least one (but probably many) realities wherein youths have obtained their rights and adult-child sex is not only legal but a cultural norm.

However, near infinite is still not infinite--the universe is still subject to some limitations. If it weren't, then pattern and structure would likely be impossible; ditto consciousness.

Confused yet? :-p

As I see it, the only inevitable aspect of natural evolution is a move toward balance, and since human culture exists in reality, it is part of the process of natural evolution. There is a truism in science--nature seeks stasis. In other words, it moves toward balance. A ball will not rest on an incline (say, a hill)--it will roll until it reaches a place where it can no longer roll, a level field, if you will.

Everything in nature is the same way, even us, though we fight it. We can push that ball up that hill many, many times or hold it at the top of the hill, but eventually nature will win--it's only a matter of when and how. Either the person will give up and let the ball go where it intends to go or they'll die and will no longer be able to stop its rolling. Maybe someone else will step in, but we should not be so arrogant to assume that there will always be someone there to do so. Reality suggests otherwise, and in the natural order of things, the ball will go where it must go.

Now, how does this apply to culture? Well, it's simple--consider reality as equal to truth. Truth and reality are interchangeable, because by definition, what is real must be true and vice versa. If that's so, then abstract truth must be as real as empirical truth, no? The world of logic and mathematics is infallible because it is self-evident and balances itself automatically. [e.g. 2+2=4, wherein 2+2 is on one side of the scale and 4 is on the other; equal means they share the same value (hence, balanced.)]

Let's go back to our rolling ball analogy for a minute. We know it's true that, without interference, the ball will roll until it cannot roll any longer--it comes to rest against another object or on a level field (though the field is where it "wants" to be.) Even in the situation where it lies against another object, it is constantly exerting pressure against that object, a bit at a time until, eventually, the ball will either erode the object or itself, depending on which is denser. It may take hundreds, or even millions, of years, but it is inevitable . . . unless there is interference from without.

Now for a side point: Truth has to meet certain criteria to be considered truth--one of my professors (a staunch right-wing Christian, ironically) gave a definition of truth as having to meet 3 criteria, and I have never seen any reason to challenge her definition. She said that truth must be universal (applying the same way in all situations everywhere and to all people, regardless of their beliefs), constant (at all times--it never changes), and objective (can be understood logically/rationally.)

It is the latter that mystics generally neglect. Note that when I use the word "mystic" here, I do not necessarily mean someone who believes in something that has not been proven--I have faith that the sun will rise every day, but that doesn't mean it will. What I mean by mystics is, people who believe in something that is inherently unprovable. For example, people who believe that there is a being who created the universe and who trancends the natural world.

You see the difference? While science can demonstrate what takes place in the natural world, it cannot verify anything beyond the natural world, or that there even IS anything beyone the natural world. And, since science and mathematics are the only systematic measures of reality that we have, the criticism generally levelled at scientists by mystics (that they are closed minded and anti-spiritual) is ridiculous.

Yes, they are closed minded in a sense--they can only accept as provably true that which is provably true, LOL. Mystics want to say that what is unprovable is also science, which effectively destroys the whole concept of science (as a measure of reality.)

I know I seem to be going off on a tangent or three, but stick with me here please. I will get back to the inevitable evolution of the culture in a sec. :)

Okay, so nature seeks stasis/balance, and we humans (and our culture) are part of nature, meaning unless we fight against it, we too will fall in line with nature and seek balance. But we are complex beings, and as such, we often fail to see that we sometimes unintentionally make things harder for ourselves. And that is what we've done by tying sex and love together. We've overcomplicated both love and sex and created scads and scads of problems for ourselves.

In human culture, as in nature, we move towards stasis, and in the cultural sense, that mean peace, tolerance, understanding, and happiness for everyone, or as many people as possible. Why? Because peace for everyone is the path of least resistance--it's the cultural equivalent of the level plain.

Humans are empathetic creatures by nature; we have to be. So, when others suffer, so do we and vice versa. But, we hate suffering and do everything in our power to fight against it, including denying that it exists. We create scapegoats on which to blame our suffering, but the problem with this is, we eventually empathize with the scapegoats, and that's how the culture evolves to the next level.

That's why I say that acceptance of peds is inevitable--society cannot hate for long without taking a heavy toll on its own psyche. All former scapegoat groups--from non-Christians, to Jews, to blacks, to gays--have been (or are in the process of being) accepted and assimilated into the culture. We are only the latest group in a long line of historical groups that have been hated in their time.

But, the culture seeks balance, meaning peace, a lack of conflict. Yes, hate can be deep-rooted, and it's very painful to uproot long-held convictions, so you have backlashes against it. But make no mistake--we are undergoing a paradigm shift as we speak, and that's what I mean by the inevitable evolution of the culture.

Certain things seem to be built-in to the human species, and one of these, as nature demonstrates, is a gradual move towards tolerance and acceptance. The next generation will be more tolerant than this one, and the one after that more tolerant yet, and so on (taking into account occasional long-term threats which push a culture backwards, but only for short durations.)

One more point: When I say that we must break the love/sex connection, I do not mean that loving sexual relationships should cease. In fact, I desire quite the opposite. I hope that all sexual relationships have a foundation of love behind them. But, I think that it's harmful to demand that the two be intertwined, because it creates unnecessary cultural baggage that invariably ruins many relationships. Have you ever noticed that some of the most loving relationships are couples that aren't married but have been together for a long time? Why do you think that is?

I'll tell you why I think it is--no expectations equals no pressure to conform, and that frees the relationship to evolve as it will. You can't place limitations on love; if you do, you change it into something else or destroy it altogether. We should all learn to trust our hearts and be open to all possibilities that strengthen a relationship, and we shouldn't allow sexual or cultural taboos to interfere with that.

My sense is that, if all such [non-harmful] taboos were eliminated, there would be far more people staying together because they wanted to, not because they had to. The "family values" of religionists is a myth, created not to preserve love but to preserve tradition. When we as a culture learn this vital difference, then we will all be much happier.

So . . . whaddya think? Sorry to be so long-winded, but I really had lots to say, LOL.