I get it. But it will be extremely hard to garner sympathy for sex offenders.

Yes, but the author cannot seriously expect politicians to be able to control their sadistic urges.

I was reading an article just yesterday about a guy in Britain whose son, who was aged 16 or 17, made love with a girl who was 15, two months off turning 16. She told him she was 16. When the girl's mother found out she freaked and reported the boy to the cops and he ended up being on the sex offenders register, I don't know the details. The boy had always aspired to be a pilot in the RAF, and now he was debarred not only from that, but all the careers he had ever wanted in the public service. Seeing that his life's dreams had just been shattered by "a stupid little girl" (the father's words), the son committed suicide. His body was seen hanging in his bedroom window covered in wounds from his self harm. His mother went into a grievous depression and committed suicide 2 months later.

Ironically at the same time as politicians bend over backwards not to offend the homosexual lobby, they are redoubling the vicious persecution of normal human sexual behaviour in other areas. For purposes of a discussion of sexuality, the idea that people are physically or psychologically incapable of consenting under the age of 18, or 16, is just simply nonsense. Not only that, but the average age of puberty in women has fallen by 3 years since the age of consent laws were first passed in the late 19th century - the biggest physiological shift in history. While in former ages, a 15 year old sexually mature woman - 3 years less physically mature than today's 15 year olds - would have been ready for marriage and family, we now have the situation that the *males* are unequally criminalised, because it is also normal human behaviour for heterosexual couples to match up with an age difference of a few years.

Talk of "predation" is also vicious and sadistic nonsense. We're not talking about anyone eating the flesh of another, we're talking about *consensual* sex between sexually mature people.

KJK,

Yes.

There's no segway here that connects normal consensual sex between consenting adults and the usual homophobia that rears its ugly head any time sexual offence is the alleged topic?

People who prey on kids can be hetero or homo and permissible in some cultures, who allow older women to educate young boys on the how to art of making love to a women, particularly less experienced less knowledgeable girls!

And we also know that one in four households, experimental sexual activity is the common norm between siblings of all sexual orientation, and often initiated by the more sexually mature female family members?

Precocious kids don't get to be precocious by chance, although possible? But are usually exposed to sex by other older more knowledgeable children or adult pedophiles of all sexual orientation!

That said, lost innocence is never a victimless crime; and we ought to have a sexual register that names and shames all pedophiles, name, rank, serial number, recent photo and current known address, which can never be close to a school/child's playground etc.

This is the worst we can do to these folk, who if I had my druthers would be surgically castrated before being sent into permenant exile with only their peers for company?

On a lighter note, I heard of Kiwi Professor, who wanted to know what effect testosterone played in young adult male sexual behavior and had herself injected with three doses of testosterone monthly?

The first month the story goes you couldn't wipe the smile off of hubby's face? The second month, saw him scurrying furtively looking for a dark corner, while his better half searched until she found him, where and when she allegedly obliged him to rise to the occasion?

The third month saw him clambering up onto the roof and hauling the ladder up after him while the bearded lady searched in vain?

All the ladies denigrating oversexed males should be exposed to the same level of testosterone fueled sexual appetite, before they start lambasting normal sexual appetites in adult males!
Alan B.

Too bad if you're later found to be innocent.

At least we can be assured that they never ever make administrative errors in government departments and include a wrong name.

Perhaps they should also post warning signs outside Churches saying that minors should enter at their own risk.

'And we also know that one in four households, experimental sexual activity is the common norm between siblings of all sexual orientation, and often initiated by the more sexually mature female family members?'

Oh of course we know that Alan. Is this just one of your dogmas that if quoted for long enough people start to believe. Did the orginators of the 'safe'schools project quote this figure or did you just make it up in your head.

G'day there JARDINE K JARDINE...

What an absolute parody, the loss of two seemingly 'innocent' people over a legal technicality. The age of consent when I was still in the job; for a female was age 16 years. And you're right some 13 years old girls can appear to be 16 even 18 years with all the make-up and fashionable clothing, such is the rapid maturity of some young ladies. Hitherto referred to as 'gaol bait' by some.

My understanding the charge of 'Carnal Knowledge' is not laid very much these days? Unless of course the girl is not incontrovertibly mature; or the male person has discernibly taken some material advantage of her; and/or the age difference is very obviously considerable; or the offender has antecedents for similar offences .

The reason being J K J, once you 'jump the box' at the Magistrates Court, unless you've significantly fulfilled the criminal proofs of 'Carnal Knowledge' he'll/she'll dismiss it as NETO'd. Age alone 'generally' won't do it, it must be accompanied by some other material proof to convince most Magistrates.

Apropos a 'Sex Offenders Register' I agree with it, ONLY for those convicted of Paedophilia or aggravated sexual assault (Rape). That was a very interesting contribution of yours J K J, very thought provoking I thought.

None of the above runner! And you do need to catch up on your reading if only to absorb some valuable facts, which may even allow you to stop attacking the messenger! Which might even add some civilised decorum to became the standard norm in your dialogue. And a good leader's example for others of like ilk to follow!

I was raised in very poor circumstances runner, but no matter how poor or difficult, was raised to believe common courtesy and civility cost nothing!

Try it and some accuracy, as opposed to fired from the hip accusations, trust me it won't hurt very much!
You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

o sung wu

Thanks for that.

But what is "Paedophilia"? Because it's now being generally used to mean with someone under the age of consent, and even under 18, confuting a minor, for purposes of eligiblity to vote in general elections, with a "child" for purposes of a discussion of sexuality.

I'm not so sure that underage sex is not generally prosecuted. I know that the child protection departments have a section, which is half police, and which spends a lot of their time acting as the Virginity Policy, persecuting young men for making love with their teenage girlfriends. The law classifies as "child sex abuse" what is in fact consensual, i.e. not abuse, and between sexually mature persons, i.e. not children. That is, it's just "sex", not "child sex abuse at all". So the problem is, they're classifying normal non-offensive human behaviour of adolescents in with the violent rape of a child.

If it were true that they don't prosecute except in aggravated cases, then the laws persecuting all other cases should be repealed. Rape is already illegal. "Statutory rape" just means the law will not recognise consent as a defence to a charge of rape. In other words, it's a legal fiction. Statutory rape is in the same factual and logical category as non-rape.

An unholy vector of sex-hating Christians and male-hating feminists has foisted on societies throughout the world these stupid laws. While they pretend to be laws of child protection, they are actually laws of sexual morality. If adultery, fornication, homosexuality and prostitution are no longer criminal offences, neither should *consensual* sex between *sexually mature* people be.

When challenged to identify what physical harm necessarily flows from under-age sex, its apologists immediately fall back to some supposed emotional harm. But when you ask them to specifically identify it, they are at a complete loss, and gape like goldfish.

There is no purpose of a sexual offender registry that is not already served by making criminal records public.

Alan B.
"All the ladies denigrating oversexed males should be exposed to the same level of testosterone fueled sexual appetite..."

Yeah LOL.

That reminds me of a female friend I used to know, who was discussing a course of medical treatment on testosterone with a female friend of hers.

"And how did you find it?" asked the friend.

"It was great!" she said "Only I felt this irresistible urge to scratch my balls."

Hi there JARDINE K JARDINE...

The term paedophile describes an adult male person seeking sexual intercourse with either a male or female ('child' as identified by a State Statute). In my over 32 years in the police force much of it as a detective, I've not been involved in matters relating to paedophila, therefore my knowledge is limited to that of generalities only.

One thing is certain most State governments are cracking down hard on this particular crime because of it's notoriety and the disgust it inspires in the community at large. Moreover, most police will vigorously prosecute such offences as it tends to disgust most of them as well. A very topical crime out there in the community at the moment K J K !

In one of your earlier paragraphs, you suggested that if the judiciary wasn't all that keen in pursuing Carnal Knowledge prosecutions, I just hope I wasn't unintentionally misleading you, by suggesting they were 'soft' on this particular crime per se., as they're most definitely are not.

As you quite rightly suggested, a young girl under 16 years of age, if it's her intent to experiment sexually, with either her boyfriend or another male person, can manifestly 'increase' her apparent age, by the application of make-up and more sophisticated dressing, will probably fool most individuals. Nevertheless provided police have been industrious with their prosecution, they'll most assuredly, will get-up with Carnal Knowledge, when the matter is heard. That's provided the Brief is tight and the Criminal Proofs have been adequately covered.

Thanks for that JKJ. And on a similar subject, as a younger still able bodied man, I used to occasionally spoil a good walk with the occassional golf game. You know where you spend all day trying to hit a very small ball around a very large one? And where the only two good balls I hit was the day I stepped on a rake some thoughtful member had left lying in a sand trap, where I learned my one good golf shot! Thanks to endless practise with the sand wedge.
Cheers, Alan B.

Given that theoretically teenagers can be registered as sex offenders for sending nude pics of themselves, perhaps the sex offender list should be restricted to those that are proven predators and a risk to society.

o sung wu

"The term paedophile describes an adult male person seeking sexual intercourse with either a male or female ('child' as identified by a State Statute)."

(Adult male. Note the sexism.)

Yes, my point is only that this would and does include normal human behaviour that is non-offensive, and that should not be criminalised, far less be treated as some kind of extra-heinous crime deserving a special public register.

The alleged "disgust" of the community at what is private consensual behaviour between sexually mature people is no more argument for criminalisation, than it is for the homosexuality or adultery. It's none of the public's business, and government should not be in the business of criminal laws of sexual morality.

Criminalising child abuse is a different matter. But sex does not automatically become "child abuse" just because the State defines non-children to be "children". And of course the magical age varies with state borders. The State could make the age of majority 21, or 25, if it wanted to, or could stipulate any age for that matter.

Are we then to believe that consensual sex between a couple under that age is ipso facto "child sex abuse"? They could even be de facto husband and wife with children. It's complete nonsense.

Also, to take the age of majority, for purposes of determining who is an *adult* eligible to vote in a public election, and use it to determine who is a *child* for purposes of sex, is to confuse two completely different matters.

People should not be persecuted and punished for non-offensive private behaviour, and if they are sexually mature and consenting, there should be no irrebutable legal presumption that it's child sex abuse.

These are real people we're discussing. Why should males be unequally criminalised and villified for non-offensive behaviour? The vast majority of cases of so-called child sex abuse don't involve children or abuse at all, they involve consenting young women.

And this when the rest of the community's standards have never been more open.

It is just a modern version of puritanism gone mad.

Hi there JARDINE K JARDINE...

I appreciate your point of view and understand your argument in terms of morality and human behaviour. However the 'State' doesn't agree. Consequently they created the criminal offence of Carnal Knowledge which can attract a fairly substantial custodial sentence, particularly if the presiding judiciary decides to apply his/her sentencing options with considerable vigour.

It doesn't matter one bit whether or not sex offender registries are or are not effective in preventing crime.
The public have a right to know who they are, where they live, and what their crimes are.
If they were sentenced in a public court paid for by taxpayers for crimes against other members of the community, then taxpayers have a right to know everything about them.

"When the registry was first introduced, “sexual predators” were seen as not able to control their urges, and thus citizens needed to modify their own behaviour to prevent crime."

Have you by chance completely lost your damn mind?
So 'they' run around raping kids and the 'community' is sentenced by a court to modify their behavior.
I'm really not sure you're all there.

"The idea that criminals can’t control their own behavior was replaced by attention to institutional and cultural failures that allow rapes to happen and go unpunished, despite this fact the registry is still going strong."

Whether they can or can't control their own behavior makes no difference (other than the fact that if they cannot control their behavior they should be locked up and not part of the community).

They are the criminals, this seems to be completely lost on you.

Whilst I agree with you that some things are over the top, like teenagers experimenting and sexting etc. you cross the line completely in defense of these perverts when you speak of 'protecting these offenders'.

They were predators and now they complain about being victimised.
The hunter becomes the hunted; that's karma, they reap what they so.
They rightly deserve a taste of their own medicine if anyone does.

If they rape kids, then imprisonment is the lightest form of punishment compared to what they really deserve.
I say they deserve a bullet in the head and every day above ground discrimination or no discrimination should be considered a gift.

Don't stick up for predators of children Erika, it's disgusting and unconscionable.
I suppose if you are a screwed up brainwashed minority loving millennial you probably wouldn't know that.

Armchair critic

No-one is eating the flesh of anyone, so talk of predation is ridiculous hyberbole.

No-one is talking about the rape of anyone insofar as we are talking about consensual sex, so ditto.

And no-one is talking about "children", i.e. prepubescent persons, while ever we are talking about post-pubescent children.

As soon as we peel away the layers of hysterical untruth, we are left with the fact that the vast majority of these supposedly heinous crimes, are actually the unjustified thoughtless criminalisation of ordinary and non-offensive human behaviour that has nothing to do with rape or abuse or children.

IF we are talking about the rape of children, fine, no problem.

The problem is that it's not okay to mix in the category of most serious crime, matters of non-rape, non-children, and non-offense. And at present, the laws don't do that. On the contrary, they are a jumble that no-one can defend without instantly descending into a whole load of untruths and circularities.

Using the justifications given, there would be nothing wrong with criminalising homosexuality, because so long as the State does it, that is all the justification we need.

It's nonsense.

We should not need a sex offenders register. As far as I'm concerned anyone who has committed a sexual offence, where force or coercion are used, should be removed from society permanently.

I really don't give a damn if this is by their elimination from the human race, or by throwing away the key, but it should be permanent.

I also think that when there is a repeat offence by a convicted offender, the judge who gave a lenient sentence, or the members of a parole board who let the offender out, should receive the same sentence, life behind bars.

Hi there HASBEEN...

I've often described you as the most pragmatic individual on OLO or the Forum, and again you've proved me right, with your commonsense attitudes and your perspective on crime. That said my friend you'll probably never receive an invitation from either the far 'Left' or the Greens, to provide a keynote address on the benefits of egalitarianism. Nor would I, I suspect.

I agree with the author, Jardine K J and others who can see the problems.