but, be realistic. an adult in a romantic attachment w/ a child, in which the child may & often does have powerful reciprocal feelings, is in a position to inflict all kinds of harm.
As are teachers and parents.. all kinds of harm. The difference is that they do the harm routinely and we simply don't do it. They live for teaching children harmful things like sex negativity, prejudice, bias, and bigotry. What exactly is your point here?

love hurts.

i guess it really helps that parents & teachers 'live for' teaching children harmful things like sex negativity, prejudice, bias, and bigotry. that makes yr argument much more clear cut than if parents & teachers lived for their children. gee, i guess that never happens. not like yr average pedo, who not just lives for children, but dedicates hours of selfless fantasy to them as well. haha.

sexual (& romantic) relationships often involve a dynamic in which one person seeks to gain power over another, to gain posession, loyalty, access, etc.
Often, yes.. but this is an "adult" construct, and not one that we prescribe to. I do understand that you view it as inevitable in all things, but to be perfectly honest, that only speaks for your own intentions in getting into a relationship of either kind with a child.

who is the royal 'we' who doesn't subscribe to the "adult" construct of power? 'we' pedos? if its so easy, i guess not subscribing to the "adult" construct of gravity shld be easy too. kids sure are lucky now they can cross flooded rivers w/out the "adult" construct of a bridge. i usually reject the foucauvian power analysis becos i think it is too centred on sexuality & pays too little attention to (for example) the negotiation of power between parents & children. i have never considered rejecting it becos power is an adult preserve. that seems a ludicrously essentialist & limiting view of the social agency if children. i'm surprised you'd go there, actually.

i think people shld be asking themselves, if they cannot appreciate the ways in which children may not be emotionally ready for sex, whether they themselves are emotionally ready for it.
How about you finally just cut the crap and tell it how it is? Not a single pro-contact pedo on this board denies that children can be unready, because any person can either be or not be. You, on the other hand, and those like you, deny that they can be emotionally ready, which speaks volumes about your own sense of sexuality. Why don't you take a step back and look at yourself for a minute and consider what it says about your knowledge, understanding, and emotional preparedness regarding sex that you can't consider for a second that a child is capable of being ready. You can't do it because those children are more emotionally ready than you are, and you can't conceive of it.

i believe my exact words were: i don't agree with the statement that "children aren't emotionally ready for sex". i guess i shld have been clearer. :rolls eyes:

my point was that being emotionally unready for ballet may make ballet lessons mildly traumatic, while being emotionally unready for sex can make a sexual relationship a devastating & disasterous mistake. this is true for anybody, at any time. all i am saying is that, in general, we are more protective of kids. thats what you don't seem to understand, & that scares me.