quote:

---

Originally posted by Daddy:
I do not know if this thread is still being read, and it appears many aspects of this incest question have been discussed, however I have a consideration I have never seen discussed on this kind of topic:

?

---

Your consideration isn't lkely to be discussed in this forum, either. Everything you said applies to population as a whole, whereas this forum consists of a more or less select group to whom incest is - by and large - not a repugnant topic.

Neither is it for incest survivors - those unfortunate enough to have had bad, even disasterous, experiences of incest. There are othe forums designed especially to help them.

This forum is primarily for the - admittedly small - perecentage for whom incest has been a positive experience.

And no six is not too young for sexual experience. Illegal, yes, but not too young under the right circumstances.

Immoral? Perhaps, in the eyes of some. But immorality embraces far more than the sexual field. Who amongst us can claim to be pure in all aspects? I think greed and avarice are more immoral than sexual practices.

Colleen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paramus3:
I would say you have probably succeeded in killing this thread stone dead, with a slab of dry-as-dust text mainly extracted from politically-correct text books.

Certainly you are fully entitled to hold your own views, and to express them.

I did find your wording to be judgemental, though, and therefore out of order. But thst's only my opinion, and you did ask us.

P.

---------------

Judge not lest ye be judged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paramus3:
Your consideration isn't lkely to be discussed in this forum, either. Everything you said applies to population as a whole, whereas this forum consists of a more or less select group to whom incest is - by and large - not a repugnant topic.

Neither is it for incest survivors - those unfortunate enough to have had bad, even disasterous, experiences of incest. There are othe forums designed especially to help them.

This forum is primarily for the - admittedly small - perecentage for whom incest has been a positive experience.

And no six is not too young for sexual experience. Illegal, yes, but not too young under the right circumstances.

Immoral? Perhaps, in the eyes of some. But immorality embraces far more than the sexual field. Who amongst us can claim to be pure in all aspects? I think greed and avarice are more immoral than sexual practices.

Colleen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paramus3:
Your consideration isn't lkely to be discussed in this forum, either. Everything you said applies to population as a whole, whereas this forum consists of a more or less select group to whom incest is - by and large - not a repugnant topic.

Neither is it for incest survivors - those unfortunate enough to have had bad, even disasterous, experiences of incest. There are othe forums designed especially to help them.

This forum is primarily for the - admittedly small - perecentage for whom incest has been a positive experience.

And no six is not too young for sexual experience. Illegal, yes, but not too young under the right circumstances.

Immoral? Perhaps, in the eyes of some. But immorality embraces far more than the sexual field. Who amongst us can claim to be pure in all aspects? I think greed and avarice are more immoral than sexual practices.

Colleen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paramus3:
[b] Your consideration isn't lkely to be discussed in this forum, either. Everything you said applies to population as a whole, whereas this forum consists of a more or less select group to whom incest is - by and large - not a repugnant topic.

Neither is it for incest survivors - those unfortunate enough to have had bad, even disasterous, experiences of incest. There are othe forums designed especially to help them.

This forum is primarily for the - admittedly small - perecentage for whom incest has been a positive experience.

And no six is not too young for sexual experience. Illegal, yes, but not too young under the right circumstances.

Immoral? Perhaps, in the eyes of some. But immorality embraces far more than the sexual field. Who amongst us can claim to be pure in all aspects? I think greed and avarice are more immoral than sexual practices.

Colleen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paramus3:
[b] Your consideration isn't lkely to be discussed in this forum, either. Everything you said applies to population as a whole, whereas this forum consists of a more or less select group to whom incest is - by and large - not a repugnant topic.

Neither is it for incest survivors - those unfortunate enough to have had bad, even disasterous, experiences of incest. There are othe forums designed especially to help them.

This forum is primarily for the - admittedly small - perecentage for whom incest has been a positive experience.

And no six is not too young for sexual experience. Illegal, yes, but not too young under the right circumstances.

Immoral? Perhaps, in the eyes of some. But immorality embraces far more than the sexual field. Who amongst us can claim to be pure in all aspects? I think greed and avarice are more immoral than sexual practices.

Colleen

---

But is it correct to extrapolate that what is correct for 98% must of necessity apply to 100% of the population?

Such arguments have ever been used by majority groups to disparage the beliefs of minority groups. Here, in this forum, are some of that 2% who have differing beliefs and experiences from that 98% - and you would have us believe that eveything we know and think is wrong.

This forum consists mainly of lay people - whereas you, in your own words, are an expert "..... physiology and elementary knowledge of hormones (which I happen to be a professional schooled in.)"

Perhaps,instead of attempting to talk down to lay people, you should be elsewhere going head to head with such as Dr Healey.

-----------------------------

Last July (1997), we thought that this would be a news story that would be carried by most television networks and most major newspapers. Not necessarily "headlined", but certainly carried somewhere prominent. Well, as far as we can tell, this story got buried very quickly after making it's debute on the CBS "This Morning" show in July of 1997, and we believe it was buried because it flies in the face of what is currently the "politically correct" feeling (emotion, really) that childhood is SUPPOSED to be ASEXUAL - without sexuality - and that sex and sexuality have NO PLACE in childhood. As long as this is the prevailing way of thinking, stories like this - which deserve national attention - will be quietly filed away for some future reference or buried on page 108 of the newspaper or magazine.

This what Dr. Healey had to say that morning:

PUBERTY ACTUALLY BEGINS MUCH, MUCH EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT... AS EARLY AS AGE 6... (Yes, age SIX!)

Researchers from the University of Chicago are now saying that puberty actually begins much, much earlier than previously thought. Researchers are finding that instead of puberty coming on suddenly, around age 11-12, as previously believed, it really begins as early as age 6 and is a more GRADUAL process. They are basing their conclusion, in part, on the discovery that there is a second gland that plays an essential part in puberty and sexual identity. While it has long been known that puberty was primarily handled by the Pituitary Gland in the brain, they now say that the ADRENAL GLAND plays a strong role as well. They determined that the Adrenal Gland begins producing a hormone called DHEA around age 6, and that *THIS* is the signal to parents that puberty has begun.

This actually makes sense, if you think about it... haven't you ever wondered why ALL children begin asking about
where babies come from and begin recognizing that there are two sexes at around the same age across ALL cultures?
Any parent can tell you that somewhere between age 5 and 6 children begin to show much more curiosity about their
own bodies and the bodies of others. Now we know why.

Dr. Healey went on to say......

-----------------

Well, I prefer to leave it to you 'experts' to argue out. I only know that when experts get going on some extensive research, they frequently come up with findings that ordinary people have known all along.

I don't feel that this forum is the place for an in-depth discussion of the subject. I am incapable of such, as I work only from feelings and experiences, and without the benefit of extensive study.

quote:

---

Originally posted by allanisj:
Hi, Folks!

I have just arrived to the Forum.
Was wondering what would be the opinion of some of you on the question above.

So, how young is too young for family members to start having sex (considering, of course, sex is not limited to just "intercourse" - come on, guys, be creative!!!)

Cheers

---

According to the new rules of this board, anyone under the age of 18 is too young to participate in any sexual activity. !!!!

if in any way sexuality is not the same for the child as for the adult (if only because the child is more open, natural in that sense, than the adult in most cases), then incest is not a truly equal or shared experience. This is where a lot of the other respondants have raised their questions. I am suggesting the physiological and psychological differences NECESSITATE an inequality between adult and child in incest (siblings aside for the moment).This, alone, should raise questions and hesitations
End Excerpt from Daddy's Post.

We are all, within ourselves multiple personae, capable of communing at the child and adult level. While some are emotionally arrested, or neurologically damaged, the overwhelming majority of us can be in either mode.

I believe an adult can explore with a child in childlike intimacy.

Clearly a child cannot share adult intimacy,, until the child attains adult faculties. Some do early.

Sadly, Adults have difficulty sharing adult intimacy as well.

How much sex is going on without any emotional intimacy at all. Now that is a public health problem.

What I desire, and what I actually take are two different things.

The problem here is, I presume, the Moderator is afraid that the HEAT will come down on the board if we have discussions or fantasies that are outside the law.

I don't want that limitation, but fighting it is stupid. The site gets shut-down, or I get banned. That's a lose-lose strategy.

Fortunately, there is no policy against bitching about the policy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guyre:
begin excerpt from Daddy's Post:

if in any way sexuality is not the same for the child as for the adult (if only because the child is more open, natural in that sense, than the adult in most cases), then incest is not a truly equal or shared experience. This is where a lot of the other respondants have raised their questions. I am suggesting the physiological and psychological differences NECESSITATE an inequality between adult and child in incest (siblings aside for the moment).This, alone, should raise questions and hesitations
End Excerpt from Daddy's Post.

We are all, within ourselves multiple personae, capable of communing at the child and adult level. While some are emotionally arrested, or neurologically damaged, the overwhelming majority of us can be in either mode.

I believe an adult can explore with a child in childlike intimacy.

Clearly a child cannot share adult intimacy,, until the child attains adult faculties. Some do early.

Sadly, Adults have difficulty sharing adult intimacy as well.

How much sex is going on without any emotional intimacy at all. Now that is a public health problem.

Guyre

---

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. I just found your response today, somehow could not make my way to it earlier.

I agree with your comments. You seem to acknowledge that, by lack of age and experience, the child cannot enter the adult's inner world, but the adult on the other hand can enter some of the child's. This is very true but it is the crux of the issues I am raising about not being able to have a truly intimate relationship--which would involve mutuality: being in the same place at the same time, emotionally speaking. And, of course, it is a "national health problem" endemic among so-called adults as well, this lack of real intimacy. When there is no real love, sensation/pleasure rushes in to fill the vacuum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colleen:
I understand your viewpoint, and agree with the points you make - as applied to perhaps (random guess) 98% of the population.

But is it correct to extrapolate that what is correct for 98% must of necessity apply to 100% of the population?

Such arguments have ever been used by majority groups to disparage the beliefs of minority groups. Here, in this forum, are some of that 2% who have differing beliefs and experiences from that 98% - and you would have us believe that eveything we know and think is wrong.

This forum consists mainly of lay people - whereas you, in your own words, are an expert "..... physiology and elementary knowledge of hormones (which I happen to be a professional schooled in.)"

Perhaps,instead of attempting to talk down to lay people, you should be elsewhere going head to head with such as Dr Healey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colleen:
I understand your viewpoint, and agree with the points you make - as applied to perhaps (random guess) 98% of the population.

But is it correct to extrapolate that what is correct for 98% must of necessity apply to 100% of the population?

Such arguments have ever been used by majority groups to disparage the beliefs of minority groups. Here, in this forum, are some of that 2% who have differing beliefs and experiences from that 98% - and you would have us believe that eveything we know and think is wrong.

This forum consists mainly of lay people - whereas you, in your own words, are an expert "..... physiology and elementary knowledge of hormones (which I happen to be a professional schooled in.)"

Perhaps,instead of attempting to talk down to lay people, you should be elsewhere going head to head with such as Dr Healey.

---

Colleen, my most frequent respondant, thank you again for your time replying. I am pleased that you believe my views are shared by some 98% of people.That I have even that much grasp of reality makes me feel pleased. However, I am here, as you say, with the 2% who do not share my views, you say. Yet, you say, you agree with most of what I said here. Are you not part of this 2% yourself? I am confused.

I notice that the minute I mention something about my professional knowledge, I am suddenly criticized for "talking down" to "lay people". Yet, that was not my intent. I notice that seems to make you very upset. I regret that, because it blocks any understanding when this happens. I feel I have failed to get my point across because of that, and I really do not know how I could have said the same thing yet avoided triggering such a reaction from you (and probably others). Would you mind suggesting how I might have said the same thing, Colleen, and yet not caused your reaction? I will attempt to avoid triggering this kind of reaction in the future. On the other hand, I hope readers may listen between the lines here and understand that I am not trying to prove that everything they believe is wrong, as you say I would have you believe.

I believe that on another thread I suggest that if we inquire into something we have to abandon our attachment to our beliefs. Otherwise, we will only accept that which confirms them and will reflexively reject anything which appears to challenge them. It is exactly like defending our home, our body, our territory, our nation. When we "identify" with a belief, it is like "ourself" and we would often rather kill or be killed than give it up. To inquire with a clear mind is very difficult. I ask readers to observe one's own reactions: if you reject something I suggest, rather than react immediately and start typing, examine what it is you feel is being threatened and needs defending. Is this not how we grow and learn? Is what I have just said true only of the 98% and not of the 2%? Or is not what I am describing here a human characteristic? Do we not all defend our beliefs and pleasures; and does this habitual response not prevent free inquiry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colleen:
I understand your viewpoint, and agree with the points you make - as applied to perhaps (random guess) 98% of the population.

But is it correct to extrapolate that what is correct for 98% must of necessity apply to 100% of the population?

Such arguments have ever been used by majority groups to disparage the beliefs of minority groups. Here, in this forum, are some of that 2% who have differing beliefs and experiences from that 98% - and you would have us believe that eveything we know and think is wrong.

This forum consists mainly of lay people - whereas you, in your own words, are an expert "..... physiology and elementary knowledge of hormones (which I happen to be a professional schooled in.)"

Perhaps,instead of attempting to talk down to lay people, you should be elsewhere going head to head with such as Dr Healey.

---

Colleen, my most frequent respondant, thank you again for your time replying. I am pleased that you believe my views are shared by some 98% of people.That I have even that much grasp of reality makes me feel pleased. However, I am here, as you say, with the 2% who do not share my views, you say. Yet, you say, you agree with most of what I said here. Are you not part of this 2% yourself? I am confused.

I notice that the minute I mention something about my professional knowledge, I am suddenly criticized for "talking down" to "lay people". Yet, that was not my intent. I notice that seems to make you very upset. I regret that, because it blocks any understanding when this happens. I feel I have failed to get my point across because of that, and I really do not know how I could have said the same thing yet avoided triggering such a reaction from you (and probably others). Would you mind suggesting how I might have said the same thing, Colleen, and yet not caused your reaction? I will attempt to avoid triggering this kind of reaction in the future. On the other hand, I hope readers may listen between the lines here and understand that I am not trying to prove that everything they believe is wrong, as you say I would have you believe.

I believe that on another thread I suggest that if we inquire into something we have to abandon our attachment to our beliefs. Otherwise, we will only accept that which confirms them and will reflexively reject anything which appears to challenge them. It is exactly like defending our home, our body, our territory, our nation. When we "identify" with a belief, it is like "ourself" and we would often rather kill or be killed than give it up. To inquire with a clear mind is very difficult. I ask readers to observe one's own reactions: if you reject something I suggest, rather than react immediately and start typing, examine what it is you feel is being threatened and needs defending. Is this not how we grow and learn? Is what I have just said true only of the 98% and not of the 2%? Or is not what I am describing here a human characteristic? Do we not all defend our beliefs and pleasures; and does this habitual response not prevent free inquiry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guyre:
begin excerpt from Daddy's Post:

if in any way sexuality is not the same for the child as for the adult (if only because the child is more open, natural in that sense, than the adult in most cases), then incest is not a truly equal or shared experience. This is where a lot of the other respondants have raised their questions. I am suggesting the physiological and psychological differences NECESSITATE an inequality between adult and child in incest (siblings aside for the moment).This, alone, should raise questions and hesitations
End Excerpt from Daddy's Post.

We are all, within ourselves multiple personae, capable of communing at the child and adult level. While some are emotionally arrested, or neurologically damaged, the overwhelming majority of us can be in either mode.

I believe an adult can explore with a child in childlike intimacy.

Clearly a child cannot share adult intimacy,, until the child attains adult faculties. Some do early.

Sadly, Adults have difficulty sharing adult intimacy as well.

How much sex is going on without any emotional intimacy at all. Now that is a public health problem.

Guyre

---

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. I just found your response today, somehow could not make my way to it earlier.

I agree with your comments. You seem to acknowledge that, by lack of age and experience, the child cannot enter the adult's inner world, but the adult on the other hand can enter some of the child's. This is very true but it is the crux of the issues I am raising about not being able to have a truly intimate relationship--which would involve mutuality: being in the same place at the same time, emotionally speaking. And, of course, it is a "national health problem" endemic among so-called adults as well, this lack of real intimacy. When there is no real love, sensation/pleasure rushes in to fill the vacuum.

Touching is a very powerful means of communication and sexual touching is the most powerful means of communicating. Children grow up feeling empty and unloved by their parents and often go into relationships where their spouses don't communicate. I wonder why?? *s*

I believe that if parents touched their children more (non-sexually and sexually) then maybe they would choose partners that treat them the same way their parents did.

Communication, Communication, Communication!!

"Right or wrong, these are only my opinions"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Virginstateofmind:
I was kidding hans. As I told you before, the kid thing is disgusting. Ages should be 18 and up.

---

But 18 is the highest age of consent in the world. What's so special about 18? Here in the UK, for instance, it's 16 - and a woman can legally give intercourse to an underage boy, while it's illegal for her to give him a hand job!

Boys can feel sexual pleasure from a very early age, long before they have wet orgasms. Girls can have intercourse without pain or damage from the age of about seven. As far as I can see, the only sensible critera for legally preventing a sexual relationship are (a) does the child want it, and (b) does the child's parent want the child to have it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by smallville:
If you've had sex with the 8 yr old, Then congrats, you're a pedophile.

---

Yeah, well, my parents fucked me from the age of 10, so I guess that makes me a victim too, uh?

Judgement IS necessary to Life.
Without it, we do not eat when we must,
we don't defend ourselves and loved ones from Nature's Dangers, and we don't avoid Vexatious Creatures.

Judgement, however, is the Assassin of Honest and Responsible Self and Mutual Discovery.

If I want to know about myself, my self-judgements, and self-shaming will tend to suppress my honesty about myself.

If I want to know about another person, my judgements about that person will tend to suppress their honesty about themselves.

Letting people know that you accept them as worthy and valid Human Beings, whatever they have done, or imagined, you will make your time with them one where they can share the truth about themselves, and become more aware of what is true. Amazingly, some people judge and repress themselves, and can only discover the parts of themselves that they repress and shame in the presence of accepting and discrete atmosphere - places like this forum can be, or like a good therapy, or group setting.

If you view this forum as a place that needs to be reformed, then by all means JUDGE and SHAME and CONDEMN, that is congruent with your context.

If you view this forum as a place to discover your own views, and those of others, then express judgements as your own, and show how they work for you. Great.

How you use Judgement in this Forum is a key to why your are here, To Form the World in your Image, or to discover the World as it has been formed. What's your fetish ?

Often, people who cannot deal with their own Fantasies and Experiences, and must suppress them, act out by suppressing others healthy need to explore, compare, and evaluate Fantasies and Experiences. If I choose to suppress my desires, and see others acting on and exploring similar desires, my self-suppression is compromised, and all the energy I put into brutalizing my psyche into suppressing my fantasies may go to waste. Shutting them down, keeps my own shadows at bay.

In my Judgement, such projection and shaming is immature in this forum. There are more sophisticated ways to draw people to see what you think is good, without labelling them or holding them as essentially defective.

A reportedly Great Teacher has offered: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Know that as a Judger, and a Shamer, that you are connected in this Issue with those you Judge and Shame. If you have any moral intention at all, those morals likely include the requirement that Love and Compassion for all people is an attribute of your Judgement.

Pardon my Rant.

Be Well,

Guyre

My sister and I were enjoying each other from the ages of nine or so, first with our hands then later our mouths. Oddly enough we didn't experience intercourse until just a few months ago.

We're 33.

LGW

------------------
People Die...So love them everyday.
Beauty Fades...So look Before it's gone.
Love changes...But not the love you give.
And if you love, you'll never be alone.

I know that my thoughts are not diminished in your mind by your heaping me in a category with those who have sex with their kids.

I know this, because your "blah blah blah" remark shows that you either did not consider what I had to say, or your consideration was so shallow that "blah blah blah" was the most reasoned response you could muster.

Know also, that I am not a person who has sex with his kids. It is not my choice.

Your employment of insult, in place of argument is a tactic fit only for elementary school playgrounds, and politics. Even there, I find them distasteful. Please try something different.

I'll try to make my argument fit the reasoning level you present:

Drive Car: Judgement Good !
Shave Face, Armpits: Judgement Good !
Dress for Date : Judgement Good !
Choose Job : Judgement Good !
Judgeing in Court : Judgement Good !
Condom or Rhythm Method ? : Judgement Good !
Listening to Friends : Judgement Bad !
Learning about People : Judgement Bad !
Talk among Strangers : Judgement Bad !

I admit my thesis has a few inaccuracies due to limited language options. Still, it is the best I can do under the circumstances.

Be Well,

Guyre

quote:

---

Originally posted by smallville:
If you don't find anything wrong with a parent making their child believe that sex at an age younger than 13 is ok, then the world is in trouble.

---

So YOU draw the line at 13? How did you arrive at that abitrary figure?

Why do think its okay for you to set a line, but not for others to do so?

A child is capable of consent when a child is capable of understanding the consequences of its actions, and has a set of values through which to evaluate those consequences.

Also Parents have the right to teach children their values, with the same profundity of right that Parents can choose children's Religious Education.

Now when a person unknown to me had sex with my 12 yr. old daughter, it was against my values and against my consent. Not OK.
Another parent may be open to that, and willing to deal with the consequences. If the child is aware, consenting, and willing to accept or even embrace the consequences, then
what is the crime ?

When the State protects the child with a law, it says that the child is incapable of understanding the consequences of its actions, and/or does not have a competent set of values with which to evaluate the consequences.

I believe that this is true in most cases of
sex between adults and children. Especially when the adult is desperate to have sex. That's when children are abused, or threatened into having sex.

Given the sad state of education in this country, I can understand those who are skeptical of a child's ability to judge, and choose wisely.

The cure for this problem is two-fold, protect the incompetent, and raise the general competence level.

Educate everyone well, and early, to increase the number of educated people, and their span of years as competent and free individuals.

In Europe, where the educational systems are meant to EDUCATE, rather than INDOCTRINATE, the statutory ages of consent are much lower than the U.S.; as low as 12.

So I suggest that compassionate pedophiles, and libertarians get behind meaningful, challenging, and effective elementary and middle school education, whether that is public, private, or home schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by b4rry:

......is it something mankind has yet to evolve to the point of commonly doing?

---

I would hope the latter, and that we will eventually evolve into a more sensible society.

For those who keep on reiterating current laws and statutes, may I politely remind them that this is an International site - based in the Netherlands - and that US laws, customs etc. do not apply to a large number of readers.

Reader Guyye ponts out that 'In Europe, where the educational systems are meant to EDUCATE, rather than INDOCTRINATE, the statutory ages
of consent are much lower than the U.S.; as low as 12.

Does this indicate that US youngsters are 'backwards', are less capable of knowing their own minds? Too irresponsible to be granted domain over their own bodies?

I think not.

Colleen.

In most states, it is permissible for people younger than 18 to marry (sometimes even much younger than 18), sometimes requiring parental consent, but it isn't permissible to have sexual relations with someone (not your spouse) unless they are both over 18 or both under 18 - how crazy is that. Some would suggest a carry over from repressed european ways of several centuries ago, more likely it is the fact that the PC Police and the religious fanatics have combined from their separate wings of the spectrum to make us so dysfunctional.

Colleen, I have been away from the board for awhile and find your postings refreshing. I hope you continue to enlighten us with your thoughts.

Big Lee

I usually feel insulted and unwelcome when people speak of me in the third person in my presence.

I choose not to do that to smallville.

Smallville,

You persist in lumping me into the category of people who violate the rights and souls of children. That does not describe me at all.

You persist in insulting and villifying your counterpart.

As for my diction, and vocabulary - serious dialogue and discussion requires precision. Simple language is good for simple thoughts.

If you live in a black and white world, you will feel threatened by sophisticated language, it reveals the shades of grey, and the lie, and delusion that is black and white thinking.

I do have fleeting sexual thoughts about children, and can imagine a context in which it would not be of harm.

That context, however rarely exists. The insistence that a child must have been damaged by any sexual contact with an adult or older child is itself a brutal threat to a child.

If sexual contact with a child is otherwise harmless, the child must live with the certainty that, once the "secret" is revealed, the it will be dragged through the halls, anterooms, therapy-rooms, and courtrooms of the Abuse Industry, if not group homes, and foster homes, and asylums.

If the child is not harmed, the child will be convinced it was harmed, so the Abuse Industry Workers can validate their paychecks, and judges and legislators can validate their laws.

Often, most of the time, they are right. Too often, however, they provide the trauma, where there was none, or little.

I would not wish that on a child, and so would never touch one.

However, I object to the mentality in the Abuse Industry that, we are usually right, therefore we are always right.

Anyone not sophisticated enough to see the damage that Social Workers, and Government Employed Therapists often do, is likely unable to deal with anything more sophisticated than Black and White.

Such people can preserve their self-concept by attacking all grey areas.

However children are quite capable of saying No. Two year olds are quite skilled in this.

Of course, a manipulated person can lose a sense of being able to say no. So I would have to say YES as a result of insistant seduction or manipulation or coercion is not consent.

What is troubling is that adults desperate for sex will insist, seduce, annoy, manipulate, and coerce. I wonder what fraction of adult child contact falls under this category, and what remains as child initiated, consenting sexual play ? consenting, as in, capable of saying No, but saying Yes.

Guyre

As I remember my daughter's constant use of the word No in her Terrible Two's, her NO's are inherentlly oppositional and unreasoning, so they are definitely not a sign that toddlers can reason and consent.

Forgive me, I realize on re-reading how scary stupid that could come across.

I can't say what age a child's No is reasoning (values based as well as desire based). Anyone got an idea ?

As a child gets older and learns about sex then they can say "YES" or "NO" using the information and logic they have learned regardless of age.

I tend to agree with Donnie in that this is all so ironic. A parent should love their daughters (and sons) throughout their childhood with a special love, not only after they turn 18.

It is the parents duty to teach their children about sex, not society or the school system responsibility.

I think LGW hit it on the head and have to agree with him when he said, "As long as things are consensual and gentle and wanted be both parties, I don't think any age is auomatically too young".

When a young person comes to you asking for sexual pleasure, they know what they are asking for and want regardless of age.

As for smallville, Do you think that only children after the age of 13 develope sexual feelings and a desire to be pleasured, well let me inform you that even babies enjoy being pleasued, and that sexual feeling are there from birth. However, this doesn't automatically mean that we should take advantage of your children. But if they should come to the parent and ask for gentle loving pleasure at any age, why not give them the pleasure they desire. And don't give me this thing about what if the child wants to jump off a cliff or play on a busy highway, because that would endanger their life, whereas, giving them pleasure is only going to make them feel good.

Basically I think the way Colleen and BigLee do, That there is something wrong with the educational system in the USA, That the statutory age of consent should be lower, much lower like 12 or even 10, That we should be able to give our children the gentle pleasure they ask for at any age. I feel age younger than 8 or maybe 6 should not include intercourse, but that finger and oral is OK.

Children are sexual beings and enjoy being given gentle sexual pleasure at any age whether we like to admit it or not, so why should we repress these feelings. I wish my parents had taught me about sexual matters when I was very young, and that my mother had taught me how to be a good lover by showing my how, when, and where to touch a woman to give her exquisite pleasure.

I believe that the Good Lord gave us these sexual feeling for our enjoyment so why should we repress these feeling at any age.

I know that centuries back religous leaders got with law makers to make stupid laws that would suppress sex in certain countries like the USA because they felt sex was evil, Well, I hope that we have learned that sex is not evil, That we can rise about these stupid suppressing laws, That we can enjoy our families in a gentle loving way.

Hugs to all,

I notice that persons under 18 years of age are not empowered to make contracts.

Their consent to exchange goods, and services, or enter into any agreement, is not enforceable.

Thus, their consent can be withdrawn after the fact - hence the theory of Statutory Rape.

If Statutory Rape follows from this principle, then a Sexual Encounter is reduced to an economic exchange.

So Religious Dogma is not the only Theory of Control behind the Age of Consent. Capital, and the Economic Order, also plays a part.

I wonder what Camille Paglia has to say about this ? No need to Wonder, the Internet Provides:

www.aclu.org/about/transcripts/paglia.html

"I have called for a reduction of the age of consent to fourteen. For example, how absurd to imagine that seventeen-year-old Amy Fisher was somehow a child that needed protection from stud muffin Joey! I am very radical in my view that there should be no sexual laws of any kind--this is one of the few areas where I agree with that overrated fellow, Michel Foucault. I think that the law should control only matters of physical assault or injury. In the absence of hard evidence, we cannot, in my view, have this he said/ she said type of justice, cases impossible to prove and dragged out a decade after the disputed event. The Anita Hill episode was a particularly abysmal example of this sort of creeping fascism. If women truly want equality with men--and that is my central feminist principle--then they must let go of these special protections which make a fetish of their innocence and purity. "

I think she is provocative and brilliant. She advocates two levels of Adjustment, drop the age to 14, which is too high for some here, and also drop the Age of Consent totally. Hmmmm.....

Guyyre

I'm sure that a pleasant stiff cock is
more persuasive than oral argument....
unless the argument is a tongue lashing
for your clit.

Be Well,

Guyre