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.

Isn't it nice to think you've won something? Did it feel good? Good, because that moment is gone. You know quite well that I didn't say that parents and teachers never live for the good of the children, but let's not lie about the bad that is usually there, shall we? So, kea.. since you seem to see yourself as the typical pedophile, what do you fantasize about when you dedicate house selflessly fantasizing about little girls? Most of the people I know tend to fantasize about holding hands, a smile, just being with someone and being loved. You seem to have an opinion that the typical fantasy (and hours of it, too!) is more than that, so I would be most interested in knowing what goes on in that head of yours.

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.

Oh my, I almost fell asleep on this one. The royal "we"? This implies that I am speaking of myself in the plural? Oh dear, we are amused. I and those that I happen to talk to in depth about this which is our life are the "we" of which I speak, and yes, I mean that we do not in any way cater to that very much adult ideal of power. If it is your view that being in a relationship (of any kind) is to try and gain power over the other person, then I am very glad that you are non-contact. I do love where you go from there, though. I applaud you on your ability to stretch that far for a response, and the dedication which drives you to actually use such insubstantial nonsense in spite of what it does to your position. So, since adults apparently created gravity and you're obviously an adult, are we talking of pulling gravity or pushing gravity? Care to explain how the existence of gravity is an adult construct? Or how about explain how the engineering design of a bridge is necessarily related in any way to the power struggle that the majority of adults attribute to relationships? You speak of rejecting Foucauldian (You do mean Foucauldian, right?) "power analysis", and yet you tried to use it directly against me. tsk tsk, hypocracy is a bad habit, kea. Incidentally, so is trying to use Foucault to back your self serving arguments.

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.

Actually, what scares me is that you somehow have missed that the focus on most of my views is the protection of children. I believe very much that we are more protective of children than those outside of our realm, but some of us do it for themselves rather than for the children. I believe that you are one such as this, as everything that you have said in every conversation that we have had has lead me to understand such. I have had it suggested to me that perhaps it is a language issue that causes me to misunderstand you, and I'm willing to acknowledge that possibility. Unfortinately, sometimes it is quite difficult to decypher what you write, as you seem to have a lack of respect for linguistic convention.

I didn't miss your quoted statement, kea, really I didn't. It's simply that the majority of the time you seem to feel differently. You seem to have an opinion of children that relegates them to the status of semi-human but incapable of full human emotion and intelligence. I'm no trying to be mean here, this is simply what I have seen and it bothers me. You come across as agreeing with the other side that children in and of themselves are incapable of exploring their own sexuality without being harmed by it.

I realize that you may say "only if it's with an adult", and that even if I tried to ask "what about it being an adult in and of itself would dictate that harm be the result?" you would be of the mind that by some quirk of reality the age of a partner determines the qualification of harm. Do you think that if the general outlook changed and adult-child relationships became understood and accepted, if the stigma and guilt machines were dismantled, if things changed so that society wouldn't seek to cause harm if none exists, that the child would still be harmed if they were in an equal and mutual relationship with an adult? This is how you come across to me. If I have misunderstood, please help me understand so that we stop going in circles like this.

If, however, you feel that children are incapable of entering into that type of relationship with an adult without receiving harm, or that we (even though we are not like others) are incapable of entering into that type of relationship with a child without causing harm, then we still have a problem and I don't know how it can ever be resolved. I would like to think that you truly care about children for the children, and that you view children as equals in humanity, but I simply an unable to see that from anything that you have said as long as I have been on GC.