Never mind mods ....

Yes, I agree that is a problem, but essentially one that cannot be resolved since children are more vulnerable and simply do not have the requisite abilities to do certain things until they are older or are more mature.

And yet they seem to have the requisite maturity to do a good deal many things more complicated than sex play. Sex is not rocket science, nor is it inherently tied to emotional and cultural baggage.

It isn't really about this though. It is about how they actually develop to become what we might want for them i.e. to be 'normal', free and integrated individuals, without perhaps having what you consider to be a healthy sexual life and many others would consider to be 'precocious' behaviour. It might be possible for some individuals to have such experiences and to end up perfectly normal but I don't think the evidence is there to support this for the larger majority. I can't see how we can protect these larger numbers whilst at the same time giving more freedoms to others.

As good parents and with a caring society, it would be hoped that the children's best interests take precedence over the desires of others.

Removing the cultural stigma as a factor, we do not know that lack of sexual play (with children or adults) is more beneficial for kids than having sex play (with children or adults) in our Western culture, since that condition has never really existed, and there is ample evidence--and powerful logic--to suggest that a sexually open culture that included children would be more beneficial to all of society, including kids.

Perhaps it hasn't existed for good reasons. I don't see the evidence as at all being powerful or the 'logic', sorry.

Thus, the assumption that removing the barriers to children engaging legally with adults in some forms of sex is inherently not in children's interest is begging the question. That is the very issue we are debating here, and it has not at all been proven.

Existing in other cultures is also not a valid reason and since, as you say, it has not existed in Western cultures, then there might be sufficient reasons for this precisely not happening - Western cultures are 'more advanced', in their thinking as well as in many other ways.

Perhaps because it is seen as such an adult preoccupation, and it mostly is, with seemingly few pre-pubescents indulging in much other then 'play' or masturbation.

That children are ignorant of sex does not imply that this is in their best interest. Children are ignorant of a good many things, which is why we teach them.

We do not teach things to children, as I have said many times probably, that which they are not able to understand, put into context or to cope with - sexual issues might be one. If a child never masturbates are you going to insist they suddenly 'discover' this new form of delight for them? Why not leave it up to their own development cycle? Teach them things in an appropriate manner when they are ready to imbibe this and some will be more ready than others but you really think there would be no 'forcing' i.e. beyond what would occur naturally, that would be happening in the lives of many children? This is precisely what happens in 'grooming' where subtle changes in the interactions between the 'groomer' and the child alters how the child reacts to their sexual experiences. They often start off having no sexual content at all - being all about 'play' and then they gradually turn more sexual. I regard that as 'forcing' the situation whilst many here would see it as 'teaching'. It is precisely what is advocated in paedophile 'guides' as to how to interact sexually with children.

There might it is true be the remains of attitudes from the past but the consensus view seems to be that a child's sexuality is for them to develop and not for ANY other to intrude into their life.

That's a nice soundbite but it is not reality. The real consensus is that children, if they are allowed any sexual freedom at all, are allowed only a very small range of sexual behaviors and are generally punished one way or another for going outside of them.

I posted what is typically found regarding advice concerning child sexual development and it does recognise the range of behaviours often found and tolerated although it is recognised that such behaviours can cause problems because often they do it is often just too early for many and something for which they get fixated, like masturbation for example. Early sexual experiences doesn't necessarily equal pleasure but often simply habit.

That includes engaging in sex play with adults. If children's sexuality was truly respected, then their right to say 'Yes' would be just as respected as their right to say 'No'--so you tell me who generally does most of the interfering in their sex lives. Pedos? Heh, that would be fucking hilarious if it wasn't such a tragedy.

Not going to happen so get used to it. Paedophilia is much more likely to become eradicated if the correct origins and solutions can be found. Bet on the right horse mate.

I never said it was necessarily a problem - it can be for those having very early sexual experiences and it can be for those involving those having older partners. Early sex has been linked to a variety of problems in later life.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Ooh, I didn't know that! Don't tell me things I already know.

The reason it is problematic is because of society. It is the elephant in the room that very few in your camp will acknowledge, since they are the problem. When the studies that will inevitably be done once the moral panic ebbs proves my contention, we MAPs will have the last laugh. In the end we are the ones who have the children's best interest at heart (well, most of us--there are bad apples in every bushel.)

I would take any bet you cared to place on this but I doubt either of us will be around to collect. I can see changes for those older children and for those attracted to them but not for those exclusively sexually attracted to pre-pubescents. They will be wiped out eventually if/when the right answers are found.