Interesting article, absolutely appalling situation.

Why do men want sex with children? Why are the numbers of men who want sex with children increasing?

Very good questions lillian.
I cannot fathom the motivations of pedophiles. I could never see a child in a sexual way. But then I cant figure why people seem to get so much enjoyment out of other peoples pain. Why they can watch funniest home videos or extreme fighting for fun and enjoyment.

Im sure fools like runner will come in and say it is our heathenism and decadence and turning away from god that has caused it. To them I say it is interesting how many priests and clergy are pederasts and it begs the question about what the extreme godbothering these guys do has done to their souls. If they have one. Why is it so often churchmen who do such heinous crimes?

"Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers".

Our western habit of lauding and celebrating youth also play a part as would the constant sexualisation of children that has been talked about here recently. I wonder if this is the (sort of hidden) consequences no one is noticing from advertisers and marketers desire to capture and exploit children and using sex and sexy images to sell to them. While it is still an abhorrent crime the fact that we are surrounded by ever younger and younger children dressed like whores may be effecting some men to think it is somehow ok to abuse children.

There are a number of problems with discussing human sexuality on the basis that someone who is biologically sexually mature is a “child” for no other reason than that they are under an arbitrary age set by government that bears no relation to biological development.

We need to recognize that it is normal human behaviour for people to have sexual feelings, thoughts and activities, and so long as they are over the age of sexual maturity, and their sexual relations are consensual, no issue of abuse arises as a matter of fact, but only as a legal fiction.

The age of consent was made law over a hundred years ago, during which time the age of puberty in women has dropped three years – an unprecedented change in human physical development. Consequently, there has opened up a gap between the age when people start to be sexually active in fact, and the age of consent in law.

The official view is entirely circular: if the age of consent were 21, then there would be a big social problem of “child sex abuse” – all the consensual sexual relations between sexually mature people who are over the age of puberty but under 21. I first had sex when I was 15, and my girlfriend was 15 too – a double case of “child sex abuse”, “sex attacks”, “sexual slavery” etc. This is hype and puritan nonsense. I know a young woman who reached puberty about age 11 and when 14 after making love with her lover had a baby. From the official point of view, every time they have sex, it’s a case of child sex abuse, rape, attack, etc. But we need to recognize that what is consensual and involves people over the age of puberty, involves neither children nor abuse. What is happening is ordinary human behaviour, not criminal perversion.

Parents or potential rivals may strongly resent their offspring or competition having sex. And that may make it a matter of sexual morality, or of sexual jealousy. But it’s not a matter of child protection.

Peter, there is a reason for the age of consent and sometimes it is to protect the child from themselves and those who want to exploit them. To argue that an 11 year old has the maturity to accept the consequenses of se* is an abomination.

To the other posters, I am also disturbed by the role some women have in the exploitation of children. A recent news article told how a Tasmanian woman 'sold' her 12 year old to peadophiles.

A NSW woman was jailed recently for having child pornography. This is pretty sick.

I notice by the different acounts of peodophiles hacking into the websites of the 2 children who were killed recently, a boy stabbed at school and a child murdered in Bundaberg, that the wierdos and creeps try to dominate the internet too.

I would like to see anyone using electronic means to carry on this madness, totally barred from having an internet connection or mobile phones. Monitor these creeps, take away their opportunity to share thier disease.

It is time the richer nations started taking responsiblity for their own filth. We need to open up conversation about how these deviates work, show that as a society we have the right to say that the legal age for consent is 16, not those who want to change the law to suit their own gratification.

If the age of consent were 12, you might have an argument.

Spurious passionate hateful emotive drivel about paedophilia and psychopaths and rape and murder of little children, only proves my point: you are only confounding the categories and issues.

You have not given any *reason* why the age of consent should be 16. The question underlying a criminal law, should not be whether you approve of the act, any more than it should be whether you approve of homosexuality. Why 16? (And spare us your flimsy red herring about people murdering babies.) Why not 15? Why not 17? Why not 18? Why not 21? All of these are or have been ages of consent. Does the biological development of people change at the border does it?

The fact is, there is nothing magical about the age of 16, it is completely arbitrary, it has nothing to do with whether the person involved is a "child" for purposes of a discussion of sexuality, and is nothing but a front for a censorious moral horror over young sexually mature women having consensual sex, falsely parading as concern for child protection.

To say the age of consent should be 16 to avoid exploitation is to assume that something is exploitative for no other reason than that it is sexual. But that is what is in issue. If your assumption were valid, age would be irrelevant. It would justify banning sex at any age.

The criterion should be whether the sex in question involves an immature person, or is abusive *in fact*. The age of consent laws in effect charge that sex below a certain *age* is intrinsically abusive. But when questioned, there is no reason, but only passionate irrational irrelevant nonsense about the murder and rape of little children, which is not in issue.

If the purpose of the age of consent is to stipulate a particular stage of biological development, then why not specify that stage of biological development? What is it?

Peter,

You seem to be tying sexual readiness merely with onset of puberty, but psychological maturity is absolutely vital, and I'm sorry but young children today at ages 12, 13, 14, 15 etc. simply do not have that psychological or social maturity, regardless of the appearance of some physical markers of puberty.

Now, granted individual people may mature faster than others but the law has to be drawn somewhere, and if you ask me 16 is a bit low. Frankly, I highly doubt most 16, 17 or 18 year olds are really ready for the full implications of leading a sexually active life. Gratification of sexual impulses does not maturity make.

The potential risks of sexually transmitted diseases, including the increased risk that females incur such as risks for various cancers with multiple sexual partners, and the full social cost of bearing children coupled with the fact that our children do not complete their education and begin work (hence being financially able to care for offspring) until much later than in bygone eras.

It is just rubbish that if a girl begins menstruation or a boy gets hair under his arm, then that makes them ready for sexual relationships.

"It is just rubbish that if a girl begins menstruation or a boy gets hair under his arm, then that makes them ready for sexual relationships."

That may be so, and I know lots of people in their 40s and 50s who quite plainly are not ready for the psychological or social consequences of having sex. On the other hand, the fact that a person has reached puberty doesn't necessarily prove they are *not* ready for sexual relationships either.

But that's not the issue, which is, whether those in favour of making it a criminal offence have been able to give reason justifying it.

It is no answer to say the law must be drawn somewhere. That is what is in issue.

You say 16 is too young, but why should people who don't agree with you be imprisoned just because you hold strong opinions about other people's sex lives?

You still haven't answered the crucial questions: why this age and not that, and what is the underlying criterion of which age is supposed to be a surrogate indicator?

Remember, the question is not whether or not you approve, since no-one asked you to use police, magistrates and prisons to tell other people what values they should live by. It's whether you have demonstrated a harm that necessarily justifies criminal penalties, and so far, no-one has. You(z) have just confirmed that we are dealing with laws of sexual morality, not child protection.

Peter,
Once, quite a while ago, I was a young woman/girl and I thought I was mature at 14. In many ways I was on my own, no protective parents and so forth to guide me. I speak from experience that the kind of men and women that i had to avoid, those who thought to take advantage of my younger self, were seriously twisted. Street smarts, and a minimilistic amout of family protection helped keep me from feeling the full impact of my youthful stupidity.

On the other hand, tell me how you would propose to ascertain a young person's maturity? A doctors letter, a peek, what the hell are you going on about. The legal age is 16, and that is that. Get over it, if you or anyone else chooses to act on what you think might constitute an age of maturity, if it differs from the legal age then take the consequenses of the full wieght of the law.

Actually the age of consent for male to male type intercourse is 18 in Qld and the same applies, break the law and toughen up and take the penalty.

PS my 3 daughters were prepeared to wait - thank goodness for the fellas they liked in thier earlier teens are nothing like the men they married.

Hmm Peter,
Perhaps you could explain why you think the age of consent should be lower, or redefined by someone like youself.

The speed limits on roads are set without seeking your permission, the age of voting did not need your consent either I presume. Some laws are set without seeking your approval, I hope you realise. Sorry to burst your illusion.

Now tell us why exactly you seem to think that the age of consent should be set at some level of maturity that you dictate.

I think you are out of touch with reality, you are not talking about grey areas where people might have to justify themselves to the legal fraternity. From what I understand from your comments, you are calling for an abolishment of a set age of consent.

That is offensive, outrageous and twisted.

I didn't only mention psychological harm, Peter, I also mentioned the physiological risks.

Why 16? Presumably because our legislators have decided that a greater proportion of risk lies with a larger number of children before 16, than after.

As for scientific proof of harm of early sexual activity in underage children: (*mumbles* I can't believe I'm spending my precious time googling the scientific literature for the medical equivalent that the earth truly is flat)...

"Early age at first intercourse (OR=4.3; 2.1-9.0 for age < 16 vs 24+) and early age at first birth (OR = 5.0; 1.8-14.2 for 9ge < 16 vs 24+) were associated with increased risk of cervical cancer; these effects were independent of one another." Bosch et. al. (1992) "Risk factors for cervical cancer in Colombia and Spain." In _International Journal of Cancer_ 52(5):750-758.

"Child sexual abuse has unfortunately been ignored and minimised by psychiatry until recently. The current evidence strongly indicates that it is a common event which is highly likely to cause both short-and long-term harm to its victims." Bill Glaser&#8204; (1998). "Psychiatry and paedophilia: A major public health issue." In _Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry_ 32(2):162-167.

Children are children Peter. Do you have children and are you raising them Peter? Do you have a daughter Peter? If so, were you regularly raising her and teaching her skills to protect herself at the age of 14yrs, 15yrs and 16yrs from older boys and men?

Do you have any concept of the suicide rates relating to under age sex as the legislation stands today. 18 and 19yr olds commit suicide when a teenager discovers his teenage partner has rejected or played up on him/her. Many of these kids cannot deal with sexual pressures in their everyday lives at a young age. Some are able to deal with sex in their lives between 16-18yrs; however most kids I meet slide into depression as a result of themselves still growing developing and changing mentally.

Do you realise how easy it would be for thousands of Australian middle aged filthy creeps to take a young girl or boy's innocence [14-16yrs]if the age of consent was lowered? IE these are children not adults. Teenagers are teenagers: not adults who are able to think out consequences. 18/19 yr old males and females are still maturing mentally and starting to think of consequences of behaviour. Disregard the age group of 14-16yrs.

You obviously have no idea of the 'nightmare and hellish mess' any proposed lowering of age of consent would cause within Australia.

Peter,

I'm not exactly sure how hormonal changes somehow trigger a jump from being physically and psychologically unprepared for sexual experience and suddenly ready. So a person undergoes the beginning stages of puberty - big deal. At what stage, exactly, does this make them "ready" for sex? At the very start of puberty? When it's finished? Somewhere in the middle? To me, arguing that the onset of puberty somehow equates to preparedness (in all its forms) for sex is just as arbitrary as the government stipulating an age of consent.

And when we are talking about pedophilia and the sex slave trading of children, I frankly think any "arbitrary" age of consent that proceeds more from the basis of protecting extremely vulnerable children and is thus set higher than say, 9, is preferable.

Aka
Your argument is back-the-front, and going in a circle. We don’t start from the position that everything should be a criminal offence unless one can show reason why it should not be. It’s the other way around: people should be free to choose what values they live by unless they are aggressing against someone else. According to your logic, there would be no justification for questioning what government does, ever.

Also, youth and age have notoriously different time preferences and risk assessments. That doesn’t mean that the opinion of the older should automatically prevail, nor be backed up by criminal penalties.

UYaz
It is doubtful that the legislature represents any kind of presumptive wisdom. They are more likely to legislate as a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic in the tabloids, which is precisely the origin of the age of consent laws.

You have at least found valid reason. But I think to justify a criminal penalty, especially a very severe one, you need to show something will be necessarily harmful, not just ‘might be, might not be’, or probabilistic.

There is no question that divorce and step-parenthood have statistically significant deleterious effects on children’s well-being. Butter contributes to heart attacks. Unprotected sex may lead to STIs at any age. Hot-air ballons taking children on joy-flights may crash. Should people be imprisoned for these crimes? Every action affects people. That is not enough to justify using violence or threats of violence to get one’s way.

To the extent we’re talking about children - *real* children, not sexually mature, sexually active, consenting people – there is no issue, and no-one’s suggesting sex with them is okay. To the extent we’re talking about slavery - *real* slavery – non-consensual coercion-based transactions, no issue.

But the criminal law should not be used just so middle-aged middle-class matrons, or people with a higher than lower risk aversion, or sexually conservative people, or older people, can bully-rag and coerce and violate and threaten everyone else into obeying their moral opinions.

W.A.U
You are only proving my point.

Applebees
I agree.

Peter: children are at serious risk of both psychological and physiological harm if they engage in sexual activity. There is a plethora of scientific evidence to demonstrate this.

The medical evidence alone tells us there is a greater preponderance of risk of harm for early sexual activity than later, as the statistics on cervical cancer rates for girls who have their first sexual experiences under the age of 16 versus those who have their first sexual experience after the age of 24. The psychological literature, similarly discusses risks for early sexual exposure.

Thus, we legislate to protect children under the age of 16 against this risk, particularly because they are generally unlikely to be able to make full and consensual decisions whilst their brains are still maturing. There is also scientific literature that talks about risk behaviour in teens and their sexual activity that demonstrates this.

The question then becomes, does a society have the right to legislate against a specific action. The vast majority of us accept that the state has a legislative right (i.e. it has the moral right to use force against individuals who do not comply) where there is an *unacceptable risk of harm*.

The scientific, moral, religious, ethical, societal consensus is that for children under the age of 16, this preponderance of risk of harm to individual children is too great to allow them to engage in sexual activity. This risk of harm is even more likely where the sexual partner is a mature adult, because there is even greater likelihood that the child is unable to make a consensual decision in their best interests in the face of subtle or overt pressure from a more powerful figure.

Thus, the state legislates, and because it is a legal question it has to draw a sharp line in the sand, even though psychologically individuals might mature a little more or a little less around their late teens and early twenties. Otherwise, the law would be ineffectual and sexual predators would have a field day hiding behind the 'fuzziness' of age of maturity in individual children.

Furthermore, the state has a right to impose severe penalties commensurate with the harm suffered, which is why you do tend to get a 'blind eye' result when two fifteen year olds engage in sexual relations (even though it may be more harmful to them than two 24 year olds), whereas we bring the justifiable full force of the law down when a mature adult in his twenties, thirties, forties etc. engages in sexual grooming and predatory behaviour with children under 16.

We call this sexual abuse, because it is very harmful to the children involved as the medical literature demonstrates. Consequently, we legislate severe punishments for individuals who harm children in this manner.