Great post, R0bert.

I agree that children can initiate sex - really its more about flirting, flexing their newly awakened hormones. Where we must take care is not to take advantage of them - no matter how tempting (Redneck). They need encouragement and support - not sexual 'training' as some paedophiles might see it.

We all know that our infatuations at this age rarely hold true when we reach adulthood. However, sexual predators try to take advantage of the ease with which children develop infatuations.

Overall, the tenor of this thread is very responsible and thoughtful. Barbara has certainly raised an important issue and I hope she reads these comments.

Cheers

Super thanks R0bert :-) I realise that you (and everyone else except Redneck and Space Cadet in the situation of women pedophiles who they seem to think are "cool") are speaking out against adult/child interaction. And I understand your point about "the lie that says children never initiate it - very different to condoning it" and I agree. My point is not that children never initiate anything but is pedophiles use the "but the child initiated it" excuse [copout] and society is complicit e.g. in partially blaming the child and giving lower sentences.

Maximus - guilty as charged re pedantry and I have no problem with your posts either, just some of the things in them seem inconsistent. I agree that the application of the law to males and females is often inconsistent and that is wrong. But it seems to me that you yourself differentiate between girls and boys. You propose that girls should be taught "the serious ramifications of sexual behaviour" - how about teaching the adults (male and female) that it doesn't matter what a person wears or how they behave that it is wrong to have sex with them without their legal consent and that a person under 16 cannot give legal consent? This is exactly what Barbara's article is about - society colludes in saying that it's a girl's fault if an older man abuses her because she initiated it with her sexual behaviour so she deserves the serious ramifications. And what about boys - do you think they should be taught the "serious ramifications" about running around without a shirt on or wearing short shorts because they might invite a male homosexual pedophile to sexually abuse them? Do you see how your argument blames the child? Hmmm difficult to see how you could have "adult supervision" of sex but the thought of a "firing range" brings a smirk.

Redneck I feel sorry that you had a terrible sexual experience while young and I give you credit for sensibly dealing with approaches from an underage girl also I agree there's nothing wrong with "studs/sluts" - provided you are talking about adults. But I think you're still wrong regarding it being okay for a female teacher to have sex with a young male student even if the young male student "wanted it". And Space Cadet I think you're wrong too.

Don't you see that your arguments are used by male pedophiles who abuse both boys and girls? They say that the child "wanted it" so it was okay. If you're going to give an exception to a female pedophile abusing a boy don't you see that male pedophiles will jump on that and use it as an excuse? If women get much more lenient sentences than men for exactly the same offence then IMHO that's wrong - I hope you're not saying that because female pedophiles get lenient sentences then male pedophiles should get lenient sentences. If I had a son I would be appalled if an older woman sexually abused him.

And Scout yes I definitely agree that there are not enough hugs going around.

Scout, Pedant thanks for your comments.

Scout just in case there is any confusion my use of the term "Low Level Sexual Contact" means to me what I'm assuming you mean when you talk about flirting and flexing their newly awakened sexual hormones. I think you already knew that but just in case. I suspect that there may be rare cases where kids will try and initiate more than that with an adult and I think that in those cases the kid has already been damaged by other situations in their life. Again not a blame the kid scenario. PS good luck in your attempts to get BD to answer your questions elsewhere.

Everybody,
Another issue I did not include in my list of reasons for prefering openness about kids initiating stuff is that there is a better chance of early intervention if adults realise that it is not abnormal.
o adults who are on the recieving end may be able to raise the issue more safely. I'd image that a male teacher who told anyone that a teenage student was coming on to them in the current environment would be taking a great risk. No one can step in to help the child deal with this better if no-one else knows.
o parents might be more approachable if their child is dealing with this in a risky manner.
o adults with a weakness in this area but who are trying to overcome it might find it easier to get help or a change of situation.

Cheers
R0bert

Yes Pedant, I do realize that my position could provide a partial justification for the behaviour of predatory men who desire to have sex with very young girls. I regret that. But the subject of the morality of under age sex is a very interesting one and I can only approach it by an objective analysis of data based upon my own personal experiences. You are suggesting that it is a taboo subject which must not be mentioned.

If you consider my opinions inappropriate, then you should support Barbara Biggs. Because isn’t that what she is saying about Lolita? If society considers that 12 year old girls should be protected from the sexual predations of much older men, then why do we as a community tacitly endorse this behavior by allowing the publication of books and the screening of movies, which portray the worst kinds of predatory paedophiles in as sympathetic a light as possible?

The central character in “Lolita” is one Humbert Humbert ( suggesting humble and ordinary), who marries a single mother for no other reason than to give himself the opportunity of seducing the woman’s 12 year old daughter. The book is written in the First Person, and we see the seduction of this girl through the eyes of her attacker, as if the readers themselves are complicit in the act. The French call sex books written in this format “books to be read with one hand.”

FBI profilers have discovered that books, magazines or video’s portraying subjects such as paedophilia, bondage, or extreme violence towards women, are not only always found among the possessions of the worst kinds of sexual sadists, they discovered that this material is extremely important to them and among their most treasured possessions.

Redneck re this "taboo" idea [pedant insert - taboo means to exclude from use, approach, or mention] subject, I guess that yes, I am saying that it should be excluded from use [I'm saying that I think an adult having sex with a child is wrong and that there are no exceptions]. However I'm not opposed to mentioning or discussing as I'm also interested in the morality of underage sex too and in discussing it. You clearly have another opinion to me, because you think women pedophiles are not immoral (well as long as they look hot with a great body and wear short skirts apparently - another reason I have a problem with your arguments what if children were interested in a hot male teacher with a great body who wears short shorts? Is a woman pedophile only okay if she is hot? And you and Space Cadet say that a boy should feel proud to be getting sex with an older woman - what if he didn't? Wouldn't your approach make him feel guilty that he didn't like it? Classic pedophile mind-bending - I'm a really hot woman so you should feel special to be getting sex with me). And I won't stop telling you that I think you are wrong. With the greatest respect, if you are doing an "analysis of data" I don't think that you can really be "objective" about your own experiences.