The language of the first paragraph is patently offensive because it dehumanizes children. In particular so when children is such a flexible word it can refer to anyone under 21 or even adult offspring.

I tried and tried, but that paragraph cannot be saved. It disguises it's message as a theory of structure, but it is a theory of moral justification for a totalitarian parent-child relationship and all it says is, 'children use parents to make up their minds for them and decide where and with whom they interact so they won't make "behavioral transgressions" because they are immature and so can't think.'

What it does is fairly accurately describe what actually happens in many households around the country and in most countries, not what your perhaps somewhat 'utopian' views (and of most pedophiles) would like us to believe. I didn't say I agreed with the message, just that it describes what happens generally. Whether an alternative that is better could evolve will no doubt wait for history to decide.


Whether or not the seat of reasoning faculties lies in the frontal lobes or whether "immature" cortices are absent of abstract reasoning, has nothing whatsoever to do with the homily about "transgressions" and "good decisions." Although, I do agree that in some abstract way, when Mommy picks up baby and turns her around because she's crawling too close to the "liqqie nitrogen," Mommy's reasoning faculties are providing directly for Baby's survival.

Yes, let's start the old 'there are no children' debate. Either you accept child development (including physical, intellectual, emotional, neurological, psychological etc), abilities, responsibilities etc. or you carry on with this utopian dream of 'freedom for children'.


What's this about providing "feedback" that "allows" children to modify their behavior? I thought the children were "using" the parents to make their decisions for them. Why would the children need to change that? Isn't this the desired behavior? It is the parent's lobes, then, that would require feedback to allow them to adjust their frontal lobe emissions.

I should think there is an evolution of decision-making as responsibility is gained. Most 2-year-olds perhaps could not dress themselves for example (not sure of this as haven't been a parent) etc. but gradually they get to do more for themselves. The same process must work for decision-making, there will be a transfer of 'power' as the child's reponsibility and abilities grow. They come to rely less and less on their parents.


Fear as lust? No, fear is not interpreted as lust. It doesn't work like that. Although there are studies to indicate that living through a scary experience with someone will tend to evoke feelings of attraction to that partner after the fact. The fear itself is never misinterpretted as lust. They know damned well it is and was fear, although the experience has a positive influence on encouraging the development of feelings of attraction. I think there are similar studies showing that working through other stressful experiences together which are not frightening, has a similar effect, but I'm not sure about that. Obviously, delightfully exhilarating experiences are well known to be conducive to feelings of attraction, hence the popularity of amusement parks for dates, etc., although this also plays on the fear factor, as do scary movies. The point is, nobody's misinterpreting anything. Fear, of a partner, for example, will pretty quickly shut down feelings of attraction in most people.

I'll wait for the scientific evidence on this, thank you. I think what we are referring to here is arousal being misinterpreted, perhaps not fully either. We have mixed thoughts and feelings about events. Perhaps in some people there is a tendency to misinterpret some of these feelings and we would perhaps be more vulnerable to this as children since we might not have the words to describe or understand these feelings.

Moth