Re: Never mind mods ....

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.

There is no such thing as 'normal' in the sense you are implying, which imposes a value judgment on sex. That in a nutshell is the problem. The value judgments of society are what creates the emotional harm. Antis, whether on the Left or the Right politically (sexual conservatives fall all over the broader political spectrum but at heart they are the same and should be exposed as such), are invariably anti-sex at heart. Ray Harris does an excellent job of exposing them for what they are on his website, and writer Marcia Pally exposes them as well in her book Sex and Sensibility, although she focuses on adult porn.

You are obviously anti-sex too. You, like all antis, want to confine sex's normativeness to very narrow parameters, to control its exposure to the wider population, etc. Sex is, and should be, an organic thing. There is nothing inherently immoral or corrupting about sex, and therefore no good reason to keep it from kids. In fact, most people agree that information is generally a good thing for kids. Liberals at least understand that much, since they tend to support sex education for kids . . . to a point.

The 'sex is inherently harmful to kids' paradigm is not only wrong, it is a red herring created by sexual conservatives to control sex across the board, something the church and the state has been doing for ages. Children are the one area with regard to sex that church, state and other factions of the Morality Police have any real control over, because emotionally manipulating parents is easy. In fact, children are the trump card for them on pretty much every issue they dislike. Drugs? Oh no, if we legalize drugs the kiddies will all be getting high (and fucking)!

Perhaps it hasn't existed for good reasons.

Or perhaps not.

I don't see the evidence as at all being powerful or the 'logic', sorry.

Of course you don't. Like all True Believers in any myth, the evidence could be right in front of your face and you would still fail to see it.

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.

I'm not claiming that the fact that it has existed in other cultures proves it is right. I am suggesting that the fact that it has existed (and still exists) in other cultures which approved--or at least did not disapprove--of it gives us a good grounding for studying it's real effects. It also demonstrates that there is no inherent (genetic) predisposition in parents to protect children from sex, which would almost certainly have evolved if sex was inherently harmful to kids.

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.

And I will repeat that there is nothing complicated about sex. Even a kindergartener can understand that being touched in a certain place and a certain way generates pleasure. The older the child, the more they can understand. So this is a red herring. Also, just because they may not understand everything initially doesn't mean they should be forbidden all of it. We teach kids to count first without expecting them to know how to grasp algebra, and sex is basic human physiology, way less complicated than maths, so this argument is just plain bullshit. The 'all or nothing' approach is never how kids are taught anything else important. The closest I can come to it is driving, but even then they get practice runs before going out on the highway (at least I did). And it's not like kids are never exposed to driving until they're ready.

The most accurate analogy I can come up with for how we treat kids and sex is this: Imagine never teaching a child to swim. In fact, not only do we not teach them to swim, we don't even allow them to see other people swimming, or even large bodies of water. Oh, they may get hints about it here and there, but we make sure to drum into them what a bad, bad thing it would be for them to swim (and if any experienced adult actually dared to tell them the truth, and to--gasp!--teach them, carefully and respectfully, how to swim, then we lock the adult up for life and send the kid to therapy, making sure they become well aware that their innocence has been destroyed and their life ruined). And then, after a lifetime of forbidding them to swim or to see a swimming pool or lake, at some arbitrary age we drive them out to a lake and say, "Well, you're on your own. Swim back to shore if you can."

That's basically what we do to kids with regard to sex--we forbid them even the full knowledge of it, and then we expect them to make good decisions about sex when we finally decide they are mature enough to have it. Or, if kids do learn enough about "swimming" they sneak off to try to do it with each other, both as equally impatient and ignorant as the other. And then we wonder why so many young people's first sexual experiences are terrible, or why they fuck up relationships, or wind up dating assholes, or get pregnant too early, etc. They've never had any experiences with people who are smarter, wiser, more patient--in other words, people who are grounded, respectful and know what the fuck they're doing. Sex is a natural thing and should be integrated into our lives right from the get-go. That would assure that body shame could never be used as a weapon against us. It would disempower those who use sex as a tool to control kids, and by extension everyone, because all adults' sex lives have to be rearranged around children. If you think about it, you'll see what I mean.

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?

If a child never learns to count are you going to insist they suddenly 'discover' this new form of understanding the world for them? Why not leave it u to their own development cycle?

I'll tell you why: because sex is important, probably THE most important thing humans will ever do. They should learn not only to do it right, but to be comfortable with their bodies and their bodies' response. They should know WHY sex is important, and they should have power over their own bodies, and to know that they have that power. If a child's 'yes' is disavowed, then their 'no' is meaningless. They learn that they have no real power over their bodies. They learn sex is always something secretive (and therefore shameful). And on and on.

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?

No, I don't think there would be no forcing. That would be an issue, but it would be much less of one in the system I advocate because all forms of consensual sex will be normative, openly engaged in and openly discussed. Ergo, the very secretiveness and unusualness of sex with kids in the current system cannot be used against kids to shame and silence them, and so genuine abuse can be caught a lot sooner and stopped. You're still going to have rapists and abusers, but those people tend to disregard the law anyway.

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.

Of course you see that as forcing, and in some cases it might be. There are shades of gray there, but adults should always be sure children are comfortable with sex play, and in my system all of the adults in that child's life can ascertain the situation much more easily than in the current system, where kids are shamed into silence by the cultural expectations. Look, there is no perfect system. What I'm looking for is the optimal one for everyone. I think I have it pretty well hammered out.

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.

And do you think it is better for children who develop sexual habits that are bad for them under the current system, where sex is shameful, secretive thing never discussed with kids, or would it be better in my system? My system wins again.

Not going to happen so get used to it.

Says you. If there's one thing I know about human beings, it's that we change. Cultures change. Anything that can exist either has or will at some point. And it's also clear to me that the overall arc of human history demonstrates a move towards tolerance, liberality and reason. It WILL happen. Probably not in my lifetime, but it will.

Paedophilia is much more likely to become eradicated if the correct origins and solutions can be found. Bet on the right horse mate.

Nope. If the origins of pedophilia are genetic, then destroying what occurs naturally will be no different than eliminating blacks, or Jews, or whatever. If would tantamount to genocide. If, however, it is caused by environment, then the exact cause will never be eliminated because environment cannot be controlled to that extent. As for me, I think that pedophilia, like all sexual orientations, cannot be pinned down to one cause. I think it's partly genetic, partly environmental, and, in some cases, even congenital.

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

Then stop arguing from a place of ignorance. I can't tell what you know or don't know if the entire thrust of your argument hinges on "I don't know enough about this, and everything I've read says this, therefore I'm right." Stop relying on what you've read and use your brain. Address the arguments I'm presenting rather than just falling back on the conventional wisdom. In other words, if you don't want me to treat you like you're stupid and uninformed, then stop presenting arguments that are stupid and uninformed.

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.

You wish.