I am quite willing to believe I might be wrong but I doubt I will see the day when I am proved wrong.

Perhaps not, but remember what Ralph Waldo Emerson said about chattel slavery a mere six years before it ended? And remember what that 1967 CBS documentary on homosexuality hosted by Mike Wallace said about homosexuals a mere six years before homosexuality was officially removed from the DSM as a mental illness?

I am no authority on what is just or fair but it seems to me that we have laws to protect the vulnerable and to frame them for every case is simply not possible and the alternative (no laws) is even worse.

And what about the rights of the vulnerable, especially since women were once considered "the vulnerable"? Have you ever considered that greater civil rights can actually decrease vulnerability? Have you ever considered that empowerment is a superior alternative to further disempowerment in the name of "protection"? Are you also aware that the concept of protectionism is not democratic? It's my strong belief, with a lot of history to back up this contention, that no democratic society will ever face a problem or issue that will require a draconian rather than democratic solution. A single draconian solution in a democratic framework, no matter how noble the intention, always spreads like a cancer to justify more draconian "solutions" as time passes, and inevitably leads towards a borderline police state.

I agree that attitudes are changing to some extent but not towards the core beliefs of many here at GC, and mostly being about understanding the issues involved surrounding those attracted to children and less condemnation.

That is the start of change, lee. All social progress is made in steps. What you described above is a single but important step forward.

I think there is much truth in what you say here and I certainly do not see the West as what the rest of the world should emulate in any manner but that education - in the broader sense of awareness and understanding - generally gives more choices in people's lives and greater freedom.

Agreed, which is why I'm a strong proponent of the concept of education, but merging it with work rather than forcing someone to choose between one or the other, and to treat both as entirely separate endeavors that compete with each other for a person's time. The main problem is when one assumes that education always and necessarily must take the form of a classroom setting, with students as a captive audience working out of a textbook assigned by an authoritarian instructor who judges them almost solely via standardized written tests that focus largely upon the ability to memorize information out of a book, and with all students being compelled to study largely the same curricula outside the basics (i.e., reading, writing, arithmetic, and maybe some citizenship) regardless of where their personal talents lie, or what type of educational method may be best for them as individuals. Those who can't meet the single standard set for all in this system are labeled "learning impaired." Such a system hardly gives everyone more choices.

I'll await the evidence to convince we, Diss.

Read the results of the objective research, consider all the points I have made, and you will see the evidence right before you. Only considering points you want to hear and believe is not being objective. You will never be convinced if you truly do not want to be convinced, no matter how much evidence you see.

I'll agree that there might be a lack of information with regard to this issue but my guess, looking at how kids behave, is that there is more "abuse" than "consensuality" when talking about this issue.

And if you looked completely objectively at the way children behave, you will see that it's very difficult to get them to do things they truly dislike doing unless force or threats are used. This should give you consideration when a child continuously visits a non-related adult who has no direct power over them under their own volition. You can assume the child was coerced without actually knowing it all you want, but you know that is very likely grasping at straws and asking people to prove a negative.

I have read Aries, some time ago, but I would still maintain that children are essentially the same all around the world so that what is observed in many tends to apply to all, although obviously their environment plays a huge part.

Then you need to read Aries again, and closer, since I suspect "some time ago" was a long time ago.