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.