you said they do the harm routinely. that implies a winning strategy would assume a malign influence.

Aye, and I meant it. I was also right. In today's society, it's considered proper and responsible to teach children unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality. I'm not even trying to say that all of them are malicious in what they do, because the majority of them are mindless fools who actually believe that they are doing a good thing. It doesn't mean that they are doing any less harm for it, though. What was the saying? Oh yes.. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." I also didn't say that all parents and teachers do this. Some of them are actually awake and teach children healthy attitudes toward things in life. My problem is that these seem to be in the minority.

as for fantasy. does it really matter?

Yes, it does. When you start making statements like that, you make it matter because then you are taken to task of being held up to that same measuring stick.

i admit my 'fantasy' comment was provocative, but i get irritated by the pervy juvenilia that passes for discussion here sometimes, especially when its combined w/ a holier than thou contempt for the efforts of parents & teachers who devote hours of real work to their charges. why do maa's have to be in open conflict w/ other people who spend time w/ children? it seems like jealousy.

Yes, it was.. and as do I. If I have tried to pass off "pervy juvenilia" off as discussion at some point, please reference it so that I can be aware of my own actions. My problem, incidentally, is not with the parents and teachers that you describe at all. My problem is with the disturbingly large number of parents and teachers that don't give a shit about the children and only really care about them when they do something that they perceive as wrong. I have contempt for those who have a lack of respect for children, not those who respect them and try to care for them. On that last bit, I believe that you can see that I'm not one of those MMA's of which you speak.

duh? the life of a two year old doesn't involve power struggles? yeah, right.

In the manner that you try to portray it in comparing it to typical adult relationships, no, they don't.

also, in a relationship between an adult & a child, the one who seeks influence is not necessarily the older or the more 'powerful'. there are many dimensions to power relations.

Aye, very large and relevant point, that. Every bit of it is absolutely true. The problem is when you start trying to equate the globally understood adult-child relationships (parent/child, teacher/student, etc) to the adult-child relationships that the majority of us here engage in. The first is very similar to adult-adult relationships and the power struggles associated with them, the second is more akin to child-child relationships and the power struggles associated with them. This is the point that many people can't seem to grasp: We interract with children on their level, not expecting them to interract on the level of typical adults.

i was suggesting that, just as power is an equation that relates individuals w/out regard to their age, so is gravity.

The problem is that the two are similar in that they are both forms of power, but they are not the same. An adult's view of power and a child's view of power are not the same thing. They can overlap, and children do take on these adult concepts as they learn them as they must do so out of self interest, but they are different creatures.

i see the merit in Foucault's formulation, i just don't swallow it sinker & all. nor do i twist it into a meaningless parody of itself,

The problem is that Foucault's ideas threw reason out the window. He argued that societal repression of sexuality doesn't exist, yet we see not only the repression but the effects of it everywhere that we look.

a lack of respect generally. i'm anti capitalist.

A lack of respect in general isn't an especially beneficial thing. That said.... anti capitalist, is it? Well, I do believe that I just gained a lot more respect for you. ^_~

all i have ever said, & all i am still saying, is that there are reasonable grounds for caution & considerable care is indicated.

I agree, and have never said otherwise.

the reason i say this is that some people do take a far more cavalier attitude.

Aye, this is true.. and I think that you have, perhaps, hit on an issue. You and I both tend to speak in generalities, and sometimes this can result in misunderstandings.

i think that it is wrong to deny categorically that the objections of 'antis' can ever have any substance.

That ball of wax is problematic on so many levels. The basis of the objections have always had substance. The problem is that they take that basis and create objections that, while they can be traced back to the original basis, are no longer based on reality. It's the old game of taking a kernel of truth and burying it in layer after layer of distortion.

not all of them are motivated by moralizing & patronizing bigotry. some of them are just plain care & concern.

The majority of them are simply blind sheep, unfortunately. Many of them are acting out of concern because they care, but they are acting on information that they believe without questioning. Unfortunately, many are also cruel people who find this as good of a reason as any to justify being an asshole to anyone that they so desire. The ones that I can't stand are the assholes doing it just because they enjoy it, and the ones who are willfully blind and lash out of you try to show them the truth.

what i wld like to find is common ground found between parents, teachers & maa's, where together the welfare of children is held to be the most important good.

The problem is that this will never truly happen until all of the prejudices are torn down and we are accepted. Until then, the majority of the parents and teachers will uniformly reject that a common ground exists, all based on a bigoted bias dictating that we don't care about children and want only to exploit and abuse them. The truly sad part is that more teachers and parents do exploit and abuse children than we ever have or would.

not necessarily, no. i think the chances of harm would be substantially less if the harms children in sexual relationships were exposed to did not include social opprobrium, shame, guilt, embarrassment & so on. i do think there wld be risks involved, but there are risks involved in everything. in most cases i think the risks wld be outweighed by benefits.

Maybe I've been spending too much time trying to decypher your writings, because I actually understood that. A fair, logical, truthful view of the situation.. now that I respect a great deal. That has to be the first complete statement that you've made in which I didn't disagree with a single word. Better be careful, that sets a precedent.

i think you have misunderstood. you are reading my critiques as expression of plain opposition to yr views, but in fact i am just arguing against the dogmatic assumption that you are right & everyone else is wrong. i think this is a dangerous position to take in any argument as complex as this one.

Incidentally, you have misunderstood as well. I have never held that dogmatic assumption at all. I am blunt, forceful, and provocative.. and it's not by accident. Note, however, that I don't claim that I never project that assumption. While the simple fact is that I am correct in all of my relevant points, I do intentionally throw in bits and pieces meant to incite a reaction. Forcing the other side to be reactionary in anything has its advantages.

i hope we can reach some agreement.

It seems possible...

you have been misunderstanding me fairly consistently... lol.

In my defense, you do go out of your way to ensure that almost everything that you write is a pain in the ass to read. I'm not trying to insult you, that's simply the truth of the situation. I truly wish that you would be more coherent when you decided to say things so that I didn't feel like I was trying to decrypt some secret message every time. You seem intelligent, and that makes it all the more confusing to me that you would choose to disguise it by communicating in the written equivalent of Boomhauer from King of the Hill.