Thank you for a measured article, Nina.

It seems that the ways sexual advances are made are changing. You suggested we don't demonise the internet, but the very nature of the -er- communication makes it anonymous. I asked a good friend's daughter, in her room seemingly permanently internet chatting and texting ($300 per month in texts, much to the parental despair) why she didn't just go and meet them. She herself admitted that the vast bulk of texts, tweets and chats happened between mates at school.

Her response - 'because I can't say to them what I can say online.' So what is it that you say online?

Anonymity paves the way for explicit chats, images, threats, coercion and bullying. You don't have to front up to the real time, real world embarrassment and hurt you might cause. You don't have to suffer the consequences from someone you have offended.

There are no consequences.

Real time real world interaction is dying and the void is being filled by stuff that just isn't real, an electronic snowstorm of utter drivel. Just browse 'Twitter' occasionally.

Remember how much easier it was to lie to your parents on the phone than face to face? Same logic, different technology, far greater consequences because children are 'sexualised' (awful word but it will do) at a far younger age.

Enter the predators - known and unknown to the child.

Cripes Graham is this a new paedophile chat line? "I asked a good friend's daughter, in her room". Please.
Regards
Blair

Nina

I would classify your article as one written from the view of innocence. I hope so.

The child enslaved as a sexual object by a family member or the myriad of other classifications describing the sexually perverted exploiting the vulnerability of children, is not in the same classification as the child "suaved" into early sexual encounters on the internet.

The difference is choices.

The standard between the articles section from 'social commentators' and PHD students et al and the General section is narrowing by the day.

The article section might one day be just as good as the General section.

I think Graham should encourage some of the General section posters to submit an article. One wonders what qualifies one to be a 'social commentator' and of the general standard of PHD 'research' after reading some of this stuff.

Anecdotal evidence and master of the bleeding obvious does not an interesting article make.

$ 300 / month you have gotta be jokin. Any parent that is footing the bill for that needs looking into. You are setting this kid up for a life of misery. What is the kids total spend for the month. You get accustomed to a lifestyle you know. Remember what the dole pays.
Parents out of control i call it. They will pay any cost to get the kids out of their hair. Well done.

I find the inclusion of unwanted sexual advances by peers into discussion of sexual assault offputting.

There may be circumstances where it is part of an assault or where there are clear reasons why it's not Ok but just being unwelcome does not make it a crime.

R0bert