Re: The Importance of Truth (major essay from me)

OK, Ill give my opinion on the rest of the statements in bold.

a) Children have an inherent lack of ability to consent to sexual contact with adults because they do not understand what sex is.

The one problem with a statement like this is legally what is defined as a child covers such a vast amount of ages. Someones who 17 and someone who's just born have a different understanding what sex is but they both are considered children and have equally no rights when it comes to sex.

Every child has a point of view about sex. If they don't want it then they shouldn't be forced to participate. But saying they don't understand is wrong. The other problem which truly is the main one is the adult who make the rules try to suppress sex from children. They are ashamed to inform them of anything that has to do with it. So by keeping kids in the dark they will not know what it is and won't do it. This is failed thinking. Because kids masturbate in many cases at a young age. They talk about it with friends. I know I sure did. Kids in many cases play doctor, because they are curious. It's in us, we are sexual beings and trying to suppress it is flawed. We would be better off if children were taught about sex from a young age, then maybe they could make a wise choice about it. As it is they are in the dark which is wrong, they need to know.

:b) Children are "pre-sexual" (yes, one of the commenters actually uses the latter term)

Even if this statement were true it would still depend on each individual person. There's children who have little or no interest in sex, but they should have the right to choose either way.

Have they even seen kids? Were they even kids? Sometimes it makes you wonder with their moralistic statement's they make. Children are once again curious about sex from a young age. People like pleasure and sex is and sexual touching is very pleasurable to any age. Babies touch themselves because it feels good. Now when it comes to intercourse. Sure people of certain ages a just physically to small to have intercourse with an adult. I couldn't do that with a 3 yr old. That's just silly. Any reasonable person I would think would agree. But the same 3 yr old could enjoy touching if it wasn't such a taboo in society. There's age appropriate sex and everyone should have the right to take part in it if they choose. And of course not to take part if they so choose. Our bodies and what we do with them is our right. Not the governments or the churches.

c) Even if children can receive pleasure from mutually consensual sexual contact with adults and are not magickally traumatized by it, it's still always a form of abuse on the part of the adult because children cannot understand the full ramifications or consequences of engaging in such activity

Now this is a dangerous way of thinking. If the child and adult consent to sexual contact then how can it be abuse? Giving and receiving wanted sexual contact in no way shape or form is abuse. How can it be? But I guess children just don't understand anything ,sigh.

e) Sexual activity that occurs between adults and minors is always initiated by the adult because kids "don't do that stuff."

Really? It seems to me this happens reverse quite often. I remember there was this girl about 8 who sat in my lap. She started to grind her butt into my groin. She knew what she was doing, it was no accident. Nothing became of it, I did nothing but enjoyed it while it lasted. Children can easily seduce an adult if they wanted to. I know I wouldn't back away if an attractive young girl came on to me. But saying kids don't do that stuff is insulting them, because they do. In the book Lolita the child was the aggressor and we all know this happens in real life. If the so called psych says otherwise they are fooling themselves and just trying to appease the mob. It seems like the doctors and therapists involved in this sort of talk are just working with the LEA and elected officials to create harsher laws in the name of protecting children to get re-elected.

f) Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

This is strictly a ploy by the mental health people to appease the masses and a reason for such harsh forced treatment to all people convicted of a "sex crime.". Being attracted to a fellow human being who happens to be young is be no means mentally ill. If one wants to share mutual sexual contact with the said young person is by no means mentally ill. How can it be when 2 people are enjoying the contact and nothing insidious is going on?

These mental health people have come up with many theories why a pedophile is attracted to children, from being abused themselves when they were young, to low I.Q's, to being hit in the head. Some even say there's a white substance between receptors which in pedophiles is lacking. But how can it be someone is mentally ill when they like youthful people. Look at women for example. They want to look young, they shave their bodies. They have surgery to make themselves look younger. They endure many hardships to look younger, now when you get down to it wouldn't this be more of a cause for concern then someone who likes the real thing? Like homosexuals it will come to pass when pedophilia is removed from the DSM. It will come.

g) The word "trauma" can have many different meanings or conceptions, and Susan Clancy only uses one of them in her book, hence her research and the main premise of her book is therefore faulty.

It seems like her detractors are just playing a straw-man game of semantics which detract the readers from actual discussion. I mean if she used the proper use of the word trauma or not does or doesn't validate what she wrote. And from what you wrote she did. I must read this book.

Well done Diss,

LITTLE GIRL LOVER