you must be an english teacher to capture your experience so wonderfully,

i guess that the title "innocence?" was intended to contrast with your concept of 'sexy' in your yf or lg.

i actually took my time to look up the word as it has been used against me previously in different trials or investigations.

if they were willing to use it in the courts and in the questioning room then there has to be a concrete meaning behind it.

the diction is primarily built around the concept of unknowing and pure of corruption.

this concept seems to be a quite arbitrary and subjective perception that lacks in substance if there is any.

children, i believe, are bound to face intellectualization and experience humanity in it's corruption, and should be exposed as early in life as possible.

this is what keeps from them being ignorant and inexperienced, thus their vulnerability, confusion, and ineptness will be minimized.

yet they are sustained in some animated disneyland conception of childhood that includes no violence, sexuality, bold language, or insinuations of humanity period. all you have to do is watch the disney channel to find out quickly what i mean.

why does innocence have to lack sexuality? that was the most important question i asked myself; for i could understand violence and drugs and aggressive/derogatory language, but why benevolent child or adult erotica?

when all is said and done and considered, the courts were practically saying that i and others stole a child's innocence (referring to their sexual innocence).

so children are meant to be sexually ignorant? by what natural or unnatural qualification does this make it healthy and necessary? they're humans and they're sexual beings- so.

then is sex meant to be naturally or unnaturally corruptive? couldn't that be easily controlled and regulated while accommodating child sexuality?

suggesting that a child should have sexual innocence is contrary to the natural development and health of that child. it could propagate sexual vulnerability and sexual ineptness for life, thus, victimizing the child.

nor do I believe that sexuality should contrast with innocence. we could easily say that a child is innocent and they'll still be knowledgeable about math or something else. nor should sexuality be considered inheritantly corruptive in reference to innocence.

if anything the sexual knowledge and sexual expression of children is nothing but innocent, unless we're talking about throwing them in juvenile hall- and that my friends is taking away a child's innocence.

ioiov