Ignorance = Vulnerability. Simple Truth.

This has always been a favorite and important topic to me as well, madpeguin. I'm grateful that you're one of the few people who consistently has the the courage, as a real girl lover, to ask about these difficult, sometimes vague things. Even I often feel hesitant to ask others about my concerns. I'm not sure why, but glad to see not everyone refrains from asking the tougher questions.

It can be a death knell around here sometimes to mention an "appropriate" capable age of consent, even just as a general idea. For some time now the ages of five to seven have been rolling around in my head as I learn more about human development.. ability to reason is often said to kick in around age four, while sufficient mastery of more complex language skills for communicating our wishes comes somewhere around six or seven. That's not to say I would wish anything younger to be outlawed. It means that my confidence dwindles as we go progressively younger, not only for the child's ability to express her true wishes, but confidence in what the adult is seeking.. from kids who cannot yet speak, express concern or empathize with others (I like that you mention empathy, because IMPO, I think it is a key element when considering what constitutes healthy human relationships which are not accurately described as mere "fetishes").
In any case, my standard line about that has simply been to let others defend even younger partners, since I don't feel confident doing so. I'm not attracted to children that young, so how could I pretend to understand the interaction? Maybe there's Kinsey data or something out there that I just haven't looked at. I'm open to convincing always.

So far as the "smooth talker" predicament goes, I've been staying mum on the topic lately, but I think age-tailored comprehensive sex ed programs should not only start very young, but I think the term "comprehensive" also needs to be defined in terms of how useful the information received will be, and how readily it can be applied by children to the real world. If it cannot be applied to daily life and all the varied situations they may confront, then there's very little point having such a program. The woefully limited concept of good touch/bad touch is not only out of date, but it was never very effective to begin with. The world is not black and white. There are so many potential situations involving sexuality that can arise, and if society is going to believe that children are confronted with sexual situations, propositions and the like as often as is claimed and fretted about, then logic demands a way to address the issue. Rearing "plastic bubble children" is illogical, because when you cut children off from their community (as children), it stifles a critically important part of their growth involving various skills as communication, desire for charity toward others, developing a modest level of "street smarts" and the list goes on. Human beings are social and were never intended to be separated from the rest of the community. Therefore it's equally illogical to expect to be able to throw them out into the world with a sink or swim mentality at 18 or whatever age it may be today, and be shocked that so many of them have such problems with it.

I rarely admit to such a thing, but I caught the tail end of a Dr. Phil show a few weeks ago where they discussed the idea of raising "free range" children. I didn't listen to the arguments, but I got the gist of it and I liked the phrase. No helicopter parents and bubble children. These kids are to be taught the skills to handle the basics of safety and other things that the world of reality presents to them. Now Oprah would like her fans to think there's a rapist in a van in every shopping mall parking lot just waiting to pounce on each of her fans. You've all seen them white knuckling that key or little container of mace as they hurry along. Well, I can't guarantee there's no danger out there, but I do know that it's miniscule compared to what media would have you believe and still tries to have you believe. It applies to women and it applies to children. And I say all of this because I believe that sheltering kids to the extreme that many do only amounts to painting a target on them, because at some point mother and dad are not going to be there with them when they confront a "dicey" situation, sexual or otherwise.

And this is where I bring it back to sex education. It's not enough to merely tell a child this touch is ok while this touch is not. They need to understand in terms they can grasp, all the elements of human reproduction, AS WELL AS the human drive to engage in sex, AS WELL AS the fact that this desire can be directed at anyone.. same sex, different sex, older or younger, and yes.. sometimes it is adults desiring children. They need to be taught that sometimes people lie or trick others to get what they want, and that it applies to getting someone to engage in sexual acts as much as anything else. There is no loss of innocence. There is only the removal of an ignorance which is potentially harmful to those who have it, oftentimes well into their teens, like all of the Elizabeth Smarts. Sheltering doesn't save your child. It makes them a target.

Of course this inevitably brings us to whether children should also be taught specific moral values here. Some will argue that if there are such sex ed programs for all children starting from kindergarten, they will be taught that any and all sexual acts with or without adults are bad. Naturally I'd be for a program that leaves it at wanted/unwanted touch being ok/not ok, but I know I'm dreaming there. Still, I really believe that even with the all-sex-is-not-good mantra as part of the curricula, you'd still have a massive drop in cases of true sexual abuse.

Why should this concern us? Well, it doesn't take much to realize that a dramatic drop in childhood ignorance regarding the biology and sociology of sex and sexual desires, without question, will lead to an equally dramatic drop in the number of instances of true sexual abuse, since so much of this abuse relies heavily on a combination of sexual ignorance and misplaced trust. I have no secret angle here. It's pretty straightforward. Fewer cases of sexual abuse creates less justification for already high levels of paranoia in the general public, which any expert would readily tell you lowers their quality of daily life.

It saddens me knowing how many would vehemently want to prevent their children from getting this comprehensive sex education even if it means sacrificing some children in the name of some vague notion of idealized innocence that they never had themselves as a child. It's wrong, and I feel the real abuse is denying kids the tools, the knowledge, to look out for themselves in today's world. To decry the so-called evil of anyone who would want sex with a child, but not teach your children the realities of sex and the people who may desire them, is the worse abuse by far to me.

Anyway, there's more that needs to be done as well. You cannot isolate the problem you mention about adults trying to con kids into bed without looking at the society more generally. It's been an age of greed, a time of selfishness. It's a time when leaders and media cannot be trusted themselves to be honest, so proper role models can be difficult to find even for adults, much less children. As the society changes (as I know it will), so too will the various aspects of it, such as valuing honestly, being honest about intentions, and having the same amount of respect for children as for adults. I do think adults need to be literally taught respect for children in terms of being honest and truthful with them, and even more importantly, in recognizing that their capabilities extend far beyond what adults are willing to give them credit for.

This sort of goes back to the ever-troubling idea of a lowered (or abolished) AOC in a world with all else remaining exactly the same as it is today. It doesn't get you very far before you realize the potential disaster. It takes an entire change in the collective consciousness of the society.. toward a world view which values the traits and qualities children possess, instead of fearing and envying them. We're definitely not close to being there yet, and we certainly suffer as a society because of it. At the same time, I think it's unforgivable that we as an entire group are routinely forced to wear a stereotype rooted in society's own projected guilt. Be that as it may.

There would never be a sensical way to prevent ALL child abuse. However, there are some very logical and rational ways to dramatically decrease it, provided we start allowing children to become what they are, rather than forcing them to fit into idealized caricatures of what childhood means to parents 20 or 30 years after we've lost our own. In these times when so-called "progress" moves so quickly, for good or ill, I think we do an incredible disservice to kids trying to provide for them only in ways that we remember needing before the time of instant communications, internet, and all the rest. They NEED to be aware of sex and all the explicit blushing details connected to its sociology, because we no longer live in a world where it is so easy to just keep them sheltered away. The world comes to them now, and they need to be ready for it.