Baldur

There is doubtless something to this, but in the case of kiddie porn it probably also has something to do with 90% of men getting turned on by naked little girls, and about 30% of men finding girls to be as attractive or more attractive than women. (Numbers vary depending on the study, but hover around 25-30% for the latter figure.) That is to say, while the aura of the forbidden has its own attraction, at least in the case of kiddie porn there is probably another dynamic going on - sexual orientation. Of course, there may be other dynamics going on in the other cases, too. Violent porn (depicting pain) I don't understand at all, but another poster mentions that it may reflect a desire to dominate, not necessarily to hurt anyone. Pseudo-rape porn (much of which is not especially violent beyond minimal use of force) may have more to do with wanting to be in control of one's own sexuality than with really wishing to force sex on someone else. By comparison, many women have rape fantasies that they also don't really want to come true - but these are fantasies that, in a sense, give them control of their own sexuality, in that through such fantasies they can pretend that they are so desirable that men (or at least the right man) cannot resist their allure, or they can indulge in a fantasy where they cannot be held responsible for their sexual desire, which is frowned on by many cultures. Oh! and to follow up on JonM's comment about porn dating back to the Renaissance - although others have commented, I would add that Australian Aborigines have pornographic cave art that dates back to time immemorial. The Aborigines claim to have been there 50,000 years. . . . Baldur

Well, since I started this thread last February, I was pleased to see that Wikipedia has developed a nice article about Neoteny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny Would still like to know more, especially about neotenous traits in humans, but it's a start. Baldur

Darn! double post! sorry!

This discussion seems very much based on the assumption that virgins are more desirable. This was true amongst the ancient Jews, and has been passed on through similar cultures, such as those of the Arabs, but has never been as strong elsewhere. Although Europeans adopted the religious idea of sexual fidelity, it was never enforced to the degree it was among these groups, and as for how evolutionarily useful it has been - well consider this. Despite the wild popularity of the religions they spawned, the actual number of Jews and Arabs in the world is quite small. Perhaps given the severely limited resources of their traditional territories, this insistence on virgins was actually a sort of population control? In any case, I can also think of two counterexamples - an American Indian tribe described by John Lawson, wherein girls (at least the desirable ones) became prostitutes about the time they entered puberty, and then would retire and get married off a few years later. The introduction of foreign diseases (notably smallpox) eliminated that tribe, but apart from that they seemed to do well enough. The other counterexample was described by Marco Polo, and IIRC was in or around Tibet, where a girl was not considered marriageable until she had evidence of having slept around with a number of men - the more the better. Apparently in those parts sexual experience, and/or the evidence that many men found her desirable, was considered an asset. Notably, however, in both cases these girls mostly had sex with men who were not members of their own group. Lawson also indicated that the American Indian tribe had means of birth control, and in case of failure would perform an abortion. Baldur

It just so happens I've just had a conversation in a chat room that bears on this subject. I received my friend's permission to post the comments he made here: Baldur

I agree with Phi for All first and foremost, but deeply sympathize with Coquina's position. That is, I believe spanking is seldom if ever necessary, but if it IS necessary it is in precisely the situation that Coquina has given an example of - a compelling need to instill discipline to ensure personal safety. That said, given the limited abilities of most parents, I concede that spanking may be the best that can be expected from many of them, and for the moment at least we should concentrate on making sure that such parents understand HOW to spank effectively and in moderation. I am deeply suspicious of any parent who spanks frequently, or after a child is 12. In other words, I consider spanking to be a necessary evil in rare circumstances, and a general evil in other circumstances, but not a *great* evil if done in moderation and with love. Any sort of beating, however, is only tolerable in defence life or limb - and of course I'm being too detailed for most people, so you can just interpret that as "any sort of beating is intolerable". As Phi for All has noted, the best way to discipline a child (or anyone) is to let them suffer consequences for their actions, and the sooner the better (while their actions still have relatively minor consequences), so that they come to an early understanding. Frankly, Obnoxious has chosen their user name well. Presumably a troll? Baldur

Forgot to mention 2 points: Some people believe that the fascination with large breasts in the U.S. derives in part from World War II, when many men were kept separate from women for a long time, and pin-up girls with large breasts became popular as a means of satisfying their urge for feminine companionship. In short, the pin-up girls warped their natural tendencies. Another theory has it that the advent of bottle-feeding contributed to it - that men who never had their fill of breasts as infants still have a left-over longing for them, which has been exaggerated. Baldur

A few ideas on the subject: Not all men are especially attracted to breasts, and when they are, not always to big breasts. Personally, I think big breasts are hideous, and anything larger than an A-cup unattractive. Human females are the only primates to have enlarged breasts. The foot size thing in China was cultural - and probably reflected non-physical factors. In particular, foot-binding was a practice in wealthy families. It made the girls totally unfit for any sort of menial work - they even had difficulty walking - so the small feet produced by foot-binding was a status symbol. In essence, it proclaimed to the world, "We are so rich that the women in our household do not have to work." Incidentally, the story of Cinderella originated in China, before it was spread and mutated into the present version. But now, to the meat of the question: I have seen two theories. One is that the shape of the breasts resembles the shape of the buttocks, and allowed males to adapt to face-to-face sex while still being aroused. This has a lot of problems, including the fact that bonobo females are flat-chested but have no trouble with sex in all sorts of positions. The best theory I have seen is from the SciFi author David Brin. He notes that human evolution is largely shaped by neoteny - which is a way in evolution of "starting over" by reverting to childhood traits. Neoteny is also noticeable in dogs. In any case, in mammals these childhood traits include large eyes, a relative lack of hair, and a plasticity of intelligence. In fact, the rise of human intelligence may be the result of neoteny. However, for these traits to evolve, it means that adults must be attracted to the physical characteristics of children. There are extra benefits here, in that these adults will also be more dedicated to the rearing of children. What this also means is that adult males need to have a signal when a female is capable of producing children. Brin suggests that breasts play this role. His whole theory is here, and is a good read. http://www.davidbrin.com/neotenyarticle1.html Baldur

My apologies that I did not get back to this discussion earlier when it was re-opened. It may surprise you to know that I don't track the goings-on at Science Forums daily. In fact, it would be more accurate to say I follow this forum weakly than weekly. I would like to briefly address a few issues that have come up, and also give some sources. There are far more sources out there for those willing to find them, but (1) it is hard to remember where I found everything, and (2) I wouldn't want to overload you anyhow. == I found Dak's description of the Rind Report to be pretty much on target. It is true that this study found that a significant number of girls had negative short-term effects from willing sexual encounters as children. It should be noted, however, that a significant number also reported short-term (and long-term) positive effects. It would be premature to attribute causes for the difference between girls and boys in this matter, but two possible reasons that leap to mind are (1) a negative cultural attitude towards female sexuality; and (2) the physical pain frequently accompanying a female's first sexual intercourse. I submit these speculations in case budding researchers want to test them as hypotheses. Of course, the cause could be quite different, and if so we should find out. There is certainly a lot of research that needs to be done. I for one believe that the research SHOULD be done, rather than condemn the research that has already been done - as the U.S. Congress condemned Rind et al. == Regarding Dak's questions about coercion: I am not so sure that minors are easier to coerce than adults. Certainly coercion is an issue, and I don't have a problem with laws that prohibit sexual relationships between children and their parents, or with teachers, clergy, or others whom the child is taught to obey as authority figures. That said, such laws ought only to apply to cases where the adult IS an authority figure, not cases where the adult WAS an authority figure, but is no longer. As one example, Mary Kay LeTourneau's relationship with Vili Fualaau was with a FORMER student, when she was obviously NOT an authority figure to him. Also, the law should be flexible enough to recognize that "Yes" means "Yes", and if a child is not disturbed by the relationship, the law should not be too eager to seek harsh punishment. Dak's comments got me thinking about adults being coerced. Much is similar - authority figures may be coercive, sometimes without even trying. I am thinking of two scenarios: (1) a boss "asking" if you can work on Saturday. Depending on how secure one feels in their job, this could be coercive, even when it is not the intent. (2) at a traffic stop, a police office "asking" if he can search the vehicle - even when there is no probable cause. Many adults will consent to the search because they fear that if they don't, the officer will keep them in mind and harass them in the future. (And this fear is quite valid.) Certainly this concern about children being coerced is valid in many cases. However, it is also certainly NOT valid in many cases. I have personally seen many accounts of children seeking out sexual relations with adults, and it is difficult to see how they have been coerced. While no children have explicitly asked me for sex, several have approached me wanting other forms of physical affection. I believe there is room in the law to account for all this. The Dutch have a law which allows minors to bring a complaint to the police if they believe they were coerced, but does not allow relationships to be prosecuted without the consent of the minor (12 and up) or their parents. In addition to this, the law should differentiate between unintended coercion, intended coercion, and forcible rape. The fact that the law does not already make such distinctions is a great tragedy - to say nothing for the fact that it also makes no distinction between the above and a mutually desired relationship. These differences are important for two reasons: (1) because the harm done (if any) differs, and (2) because in cases of harm done, the chance of reoffending differs greatly. (A person who is unintentionally coercive needs little more than to be informed of the fact to correct the problem.) In another post you asked me to define rape and abuse: Rape consists of sexual relations with an unwilling partner (forcible rape consists of rape where force or threat of force was involved). Abuse consists of actions harmful to a person, especially an unconsenting person, and can be mental, verbal, or physical. In the case of children, neglect can be considered as very similar to abuse, if not technically the same. == Klanger noted a forum where people who were sexually abused as children talk about it. He noted that he couldn't find any forums where people who enjoyed sexual relationships as children talk about it. There is a good reason for this: In some jurisdictions, such forums would be illegal. In other jurisdictions, they would not be illegal, but would be so controversial that they would be under constant attack, by the police and others. Then there is the whole question of cultural stigma. It's no wonder that there aren't many forums which host such discussions. However, I will note that http://www.logicalreality.com/ has had such discussions on their forums. This site also proves my point. Despite being entirely legal, the site is often attacked and is frequently down. - This article is mostly analysis, but has some brief quotes from gay men who had positive experiences with men when they were boys: http://www.p-loog.info/English/rind_gay_boys_frame.htm - These articles are about the relationship between three boys and a boylover. Despite the fact that this particular boylover was not entirely ethical, the three boys (all of whom now identify themselves as heterosexual men) still defend their relationship, and indeed continue their relationship as friends. http://www.p-loog.info/English/interview_3_b/interview.htm http://www.p-loog.info/English/interview_3_b/johnny.htm http://www.p-loog.info/English/interview_3_b/peter.htm http://www.p-loog.info/English/interview_3_b/stephan.htm - A girl who was 14 at the time she had sex with an older man, is waiting for him to get out of jail (for "raping" her) so she can marry him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2777533.stm - You will easily be able to find more information about Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili Fualaau. - Again, mostly analysis. http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/nelson.htm - I am unable to find the source now, but I recall one informal Dutch study where the researcher put out an ad for positive and negative accounts, and every response but one was positive. Most respondents (male AND female) did not grow up to be pedophiles, and held that their own experience was positive but said they understood that it probably wouldn't be for other children. == Some historical perspective. From Plato's "Symposium". Read the whole thing for some surprises. Plato discussed much the same things we have been discussing here. "In countries which are subject to the barbarians, the custom is held to be dishonourable; loves of youths share the evil repute in which philosophy and gymnastics are held because they are inimical to tyranny; for the interests of rulers require that their subjects should be poor in spirit and that there should be no strong bond of friendship or society among them, which love, above all other motives, is likely to inspire." == There are a number of online books about child sexuality and/or pedophilia at: http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/ Note Albert Moll's "The Sexual Life of the Child" (1912) - knowledge of childhood sexuality may have improved (at least among experts), but it is not new. I also recall one or more of Floyd Martinson's books being interesting, as well as Alayne Yates' "Sex Without Shame". also: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/nelson.htm == As for the subject of adults who feel that sexual repression in childhood was harmful to them - there are too many to count. I know many people both on and off-line who feel this way, pedophile and teleiophile. Of course, most were brought up in a conservative church, such as the Catholic or Southern protestant types. I don't have any formal resources at hand, but I'm sure that anyone interested can easily find many such accounts. == For Bettina: Apparently you have also been misinformed about scorpions. To wit: "Unless molested, scorpions are perfectly harmless, and only make use of the sting for the purpose of killing prey." Furthermore, "Scorpion venoms are geared towards activity in other arthropods and therefore most scorpions are relatively harmless to humans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion http://www.desertusa.com/oct96/du_scorpion.html You may also be surprised to learn that scorpions give birth to live young, and some species are social. Apparently you just can't trust fables and old wives' tales. == As my last post in this thread, I would like to thank everyone who participated with an open mind. I know that it is very hard for some of you to consider these ideas. It was difficult for me to consider them, but I have had many years to do so. I would also like to thank the folks at Science Forums who have allowed this discussion to take place, and who briefly reopened this thread so that I could post a final response with sources. I will try to check back in here once in a while, so if there are any budding researchers, formal or otherwise, who would like to contact me for any reason, please PM me. Baldur

How mature does one have to be in order to eat/drink? How mature does one have to be in order to sleep? How mature does one have to be in order to get sexual satisfaction? Humans can go without some of these longer than others, but they are all needs, and it doesn't matter how old you are. Baldur

Not all feminists (especially not the ordinary women who made up the movement in the 60's), but many feminists (especially the women who have continued the movement since it achieved near-equality for women), have put great stock in two ideas: one of course is that men are scum, but the other is more to the point: the idea that any time there is an imbalance of power, abuse must follow. Now in this latter case some prominent feminists have gone so far to declare that ALL sex between men and women MUST be rape, because the man ALWAYS has more power than the woman in the relationship. This is of course absurd on many levels, but they have said it. The American public of course recognized that this was absurd, EXCEPT when the issue of adult-child sex came along. THEN the public decided, "Hey, WE aren't affected, so let's go along with it and make the old buzzards happy." And so the idea that adults always have power over children, and that therefore any adult-child sex must always be rape, was born. Of course, when applying this to ordinary child-lovers (as opposed to abusive people, whether pedo or teleio), this idea is just as absurd as the idea that heterosexual sex is always rape. For one thing, those kids have got us wrapped around their fingers. By THAT account, WE would be the victims. Of course, female child-lovers (a.k.a. "women") don't have as much of a stigma, because it's us MEN who are scum and can't be trusted. Consider the media treatment of Mary Kay LeTourneau. (You go, girl!) The extremist feminists of this ilk (who oddly seem to be mostly "masculine" in their behavior) are sometimes known as uber-feminists or feminazis. Baldur

1. Prosecute RAPE and ABUSE. DON'T prosecute a loving relationship. LISTEN to children. 2. Change the culture so it is acceptable for men to love children again. Children who are seeking love won't have to seek it from dangerous men. With men in children's lives again, there will be that many more eyes watching out for the welfare of children. 3. Use child lovers the way Nature intended - as nurturers and protectors. Baldur

And some children are significantly troubled by bed-wetting, or their pet dying, or having a bad hair day. We don't make laws based on the exceptions to the rule. (Well, at least, we SHOULDN'T.) I neglected to mention the other part of the results: Some of those who had had sexual experiences as children reported them as positive or very positive. While the research did not look into it, I also know many adults who feel that sexual repression in their childhood was a VERY negative thing. Actually, this depends on the State. The AoC ranges from 16 to 19. Only a few years ago some states still had an AoC of 14. 20 years ago many had AoCs of 12 or 13. 100 years ago some had an AoC of 10. 150 years ago, there wasn't much in the way of Age of Consent laws, either in the US or England. My, this is funny. You can't really believe this? I know that many children wait until their late teens to have "full intercourse", but if you include the sex play that would send an adult to jail? You will find VERY VERY few children who haven't engaged in such sex play. Naturally they won't tell you if you're an adult - they are very aware that it is taboo - but I can remember it from when I was a kid. It was rampant. I knew it and I was a geek. You must have been very socially isolated as a child. Baldur

This jumped out at me. You have no doubt heard of the stereotypes of self-hating Jews, self-hating gays, self-hating this-or-that. We know how many persecutors have had links to those they persecuted (I'm thinking J. Edgar Hoover, but I've also heard that many of the most virulent racists were of mixed heritage). Well, there's a theory out now that many CAs (child advocates/child abusers - we use the terms interchangeably) are self-hating pedophiles. Indeed, the GLrs I know who espouse this theory base it on their own past, before they got in contact with the child lover community, and came to realize that in fact there are very few psychopaths in the world, and most of us who are attracted to children love them very much and care about their welfare. Apparently, such CAs have bought into religious or pseudo-religious ideas about sexuality and children, and frequently have upped the ante, and turned it all into a terrible crusade against themselves. I believe they do great harm - to other child lovers, to themselves, AND to the children they think they are saving. I've met quite a few adults who despised the "child protective services" or the like, that took them away from homes where they were loved, and put them through hell in the name of saving them. Sometimes they came from homes where there were problems, but they were nothing like the problems that were foisted upon them. Sometimes they came from good homes, and the social workers were just idiots or uncaring. I watch as, over and over again, such social workers ignore the opinions of the children they are abusing, and push their own misguided ideas upon them. I can think of the Braga cases down in Florida, or a special I saw on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4038249 where a CA went to Cambodia, and "rescued" child prostitutes who seemed perfectly happy, to condemn to the life that the CA saw fit. Watching as those girls were screaming and crying as they were being carted off was heartbreaking - yet CAs cannot see this. It is a case of cognitive dissociation - the plain facts just don't make it into the brain. Baldur

Well, after Congress takes the very unusual act of condemning scientific research, it is easy to see which way the winds are blowing. The APA backed off for political reasons. Galileo backed down too, when given the choice: recant or die. In both cases, the science was sound. Baldur

Just to throw a few quick thoughts out there: I consider that there are two main forces opposed to child lovers in the West: Christian anti-sexuality and Feminism. Do I even need to go into the absurdities of Christianity and all religions? I'm an atheist myself, because having studied the Christian religion, even if there is such a god I want nothing to do with such a sadistic bastard. Suffice it to say that Christianity, especially in America, is violently opposed to sexuality. As for Feminism - I can't help but notice that it has never empowered persons - neither women nor men - to pursue the more "feminine" pursuits. That is to say, "Feminism" was about allowing women who possessed traits traditionally associated with men, to pursue careers and goals that only men had previously pursued. At the same time, Feminists long ridiculed women - and men - who were nurturing and loving. Some claimed that all sex is rape, because even if a woman wanted sex, as long as she was (by some strange definition) "unequal" to the man, he had some sort of power advantage over her. They paid no attention to ordinary women who didn't WANT a new role. Meanwhile, a new culture of machismo emerged in the U.S. for men. I have heard that boys growing up in the 40's had no stigma attached to being loving, to kissing their sister - or even a brother - in public, or anything like that. Not so any longer. At least when I was growing up, and I think nothing has changed, any show of affection by a boy will be ridiculed. In short, men and women who are career-minded and who care nothing for families, children, and their community are applauded as embodying our highest ideals; whereas women who love and care for children are derided as weak-minded and old-fashioned, and men who care for children are at risk of physical violence. (I actually know a fellow who was assaulted by a group of men, because his wife worked and he looked after the children. He was assaulted in front of his children. When he took the case to court, the Judge took pains to dismiss it on technical grounds.) In other words, Feminism as it stands is Anti-Feminism. It is the triumph of ruffians (male or female) over gentle folk (male or female). It is the triumph of hate over love. I say all this because in speaking to other girl lovers (I don't know as much about the boy lovers), I can't help but notice that we tend towards gentleness. I never liked boys much, even when I was a boy, because they were too rough. Our persecutors claim we target shy children because they are easy victims, but I know I am drawn to shy girls because they are gentle and because I want to be there for them. Human Nature is a complex thing, and we still don't know how our bodies and minds work - but I believe that in child lovers we find a cross-over of nurturing love and sexuality. Despite common belief, Love and Lust are not separate entities - they are two sides of one coin - different yet inherently connected. Baldur

There were certainly better things about the past, and worse things as well. Cultural attitudes towards sexuality have gone back and forth for a long time. In less democratic times, they only applied to the upper classes anyhow. No one in power cared what happened to the lower classes - and frequently the lower classes were better off for it. (The upper classes had some strange ideas of their own.) The idea of marrying off a 12 year old girl to some man she never met - because it's economically beneficial to her parents - appalls me. At the same time, putting a 12 year old's lover in jail because - well, just because - also appalls me. Neither one shows any respect for the 12 year old. I long for a future where children and those of us who love children are respected. I long for a time when Love is not considered the greatest evil. Baldur

I recall seeing a BBC article about this about 10 years ago. I can't find it now. I do recall that they were able to make the observations by leaving the children in a "waiting room" without adults for a while, while they observed through one-way mirrors. Of course, plenty of adults can testify that they did the same thing as children. In truth, though I know there was such a study, the idea of questioning children's interest in sex and sex play seems about on par with questioning the existence of the sun. However, I should refine my comment on latency. Some researchers still abide by Freud's theory of latency, but contend that it was misinterpeted when it was taken to suggest that children lose interest in sex between the ages of about 6 and 11. Rather, the theory suggests that no NEW sexual development occurs in these years. As one source, see: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/usa.html and search the document for the term "latency". It occurs several times. Baldur

Yes. In a majority of cultures around the world' date=' masturbation of infants is common. Frequently this involves licking and kissing the genitals. It is used frequently as a means of putting infants to sleep. This was even common in the United States in the past, dying out only in the latter part of the Victorian age. One missionary I know went to an Asian nation, and told me they were surprised to see mothers rubbing their children's genitals - quite openly. What is more, these were the CHRISTIAN women who were doing this. It is a natural part of nurturing children. Only if one partner is deceiving the other in some significant way. (e.g. about birth control, STD status, or false promises.) Baldur

As regards size - there is more to sexuality than penetration. There is mutual masturbation, there is cuddling, there are back rubs, so on and so forth. An adult could give oral sex to a child of either gender without physically harming them. I certainly am opposed to trying to make things fit that don't fit. No one who loves children would ever support that. (As an aside - in the GLr chat rooms, we sometimes joke about whether penile reduction surgery would be worthwhile.) Beyond this, what studies have been done have concluded that pedophiles tend to view sexuality much the same way children do - less interest in penetration, more on exploration, fun, and pleasure. As for how to prevent a child from agreeing to sex out of a desire to please an adult? Well, provided that such things were legal, I would never pressure a girl, I would not be too quick to agree to sex play, and I would make sure the girl knew I loved her and would love her regardless of what she did. I would also keep an eye out for any signs of displeasure and stop if I felt she wasn't enjoying herself. It wouldn't be perfect, but would prevent any major problems. Even as it is now, we know (from the Rind Report among others) that children are seldom significantly troubled even by bad sexual experiences, if they felt it was consentual at the time. The chief exceptions are father-daughter incest, and when they are found out and hounded by Child Protective Services, the Police, and the like.

Freud's theory of "latency" has been well disproven. The only reason children stop sexual play at all is because they learn that society disapproves of it - and studies have shown that they continue sex play when they don't think adults are watching. In societies that don't disapprove of child sexuality, they never stop. Baldur

This is just one source that I grabbed first because it was fairly high in Google's listings: http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/martinson/infant/InfantAndChildSexuality.html#chap1-1 I have read a number of books on the subject, and the version in this book is rather tame. It has been pretty well documented that baby girls lubricate, baby boys get erections, and at least some girls can masturbate to orgasm at the age of two. Ghod bless 'em. Baldur

Don't you know anything, pariah? YOU abused HER by being in a place where she could do that! If you had just used your brains and worn boxing gloves in her presence, she never would have tried that. It's ALWAYS the man's fault, you know. Reminds me, though, of the time a girl about 7 (give or take a year) saw me across a room, ran straight toward me, and put her hand on the bulge in my pants. (Can't help it - I'm bigger than average - there's always a bulge.) I had her turn around, tucked myself in, and then let her sit in my lap - but it was pretty clear where her interest lay. Yeah - kids aren't interested in sex. Right. I *remember* being a kid. All the kids *I* knew were interested enough. Baldur

etc. [long comparison of drunk driving to adult-child sex deleted] I don't agree with your analogy. For one thing, sexuality is a natural part of being human. PEOPLE WANT SEX. That includes adults, AND children. Certainly there are risks - there are also risks from eating and drinking (one can eat bad food, or choke), there are risks in going to school, going to museums, and EVERYTHING in life. We allow those risks - even for children - because we consider the potential benefits to outweigh the potential risks. Sex and sexplay also have benefits. They contribute to happiness and psychological health. Even for children. The real question is: how do we balance benefits with risks? I would be much more comfortable putting children in the hands of competent and caring adults, than only allowing them to legally express their sexuality with other emotionally immature children. How many girls have had a bad first time because they could only choose between boys who were too immature to care about them, and the type of men who have no respect for the law? The current situation serves only to prevent young people from having their first sexual experiences with decent, mature partners. It drives them into the arms of jerks. That's all. Baldur