Re: Reply for Dissident

No proof of any of that. Absolutely no proof.

Would you like me to lead you by the hand into the nether regions? - you will have to keep your eyes shut tightly since viewing such material will make you go blind but when there I will tell you all about the nastiness. Will that do? How on earth do you expect the authorities to provide such evidence and not to possibly make it more attractive to those who might want to view this stuff? The porn deniers really are a special case! You will probably be one of those who refuses to see the asteroid until it finally impacts saying "well it may only be half the distance I last looked but that happens every time I look."

You're just assigning a different name to the same thing depending on age.

No. Since if you are not capable (some are, some aren't) of having an orgasm then sex will mean an entirely different thing to you than someone who can have an orgasm. And this is probably why we see so much sex-play rather than actual sex in pre-pubertal relationships even when it does occur. The difference is based on physiological, psychological and probably emotional differences. I can certainly remember when I first became sexually aware and it was probably at around age ten so anything of a sexual nature prior to that would have had a different meaning for me.

If it wasn't for those cases, most of the apparatus devoted to finding and prosecuting child sexual abuse would never have been created or so vastly empowered.

It might be in your country but this will not be the case in other countries.

Like with every statement on KP out there, this one is without proof.

I think you need to take my hand again .... eyes closed now?

But the default assumption is that people tell the truth and that they are who they say they are.

Yes, of course every person is fully aware of what has made them the person that they currently are. Good job too otherwise we might have hordes of psychoanalysts and psychotherapists making huge piles of dosh. Hang about ... what do I see over tha in America!!!!!

Oh, the Dependency Theory!

What we simpletons like to say - no paedophiles, no abuse - except we do know that most of the abuse is never carried out by paedophiles. Without the attraction there might be less though.

But if pleasure and enjoyment are part of the problem

The pleasure is the problem because it makes it easier to abuse someone, particularly when the younger person begins to feel part of a relationship rather than seeing themselves acted on by another.

Either this is a semantic line in the sand, and the assigning of "sexual" or "not sexual" depends on age alone and not on discernible factual difference

Children mature at different rates and two 8-year-olds might experience sexual feelings entirely differently, how is that semantics? Many here seem to have a one-size fits all philosophy towards children and their capabilities.

Lastly, it might be that this attraction is faulty as I think or it may have some evolutionary benefit or any other origin and purpose so would you treat them all the same - this is good let's have more of this whatever it is?