Is Foley a pederast?

[Betelnut]

Is a 16 year old sexually mature?

Don't get me wrong (heaven forbid!): I condemn Foley's actions (and the people who turned their backs on his behavior).  He obviously was acting extremely inappropriately, and was sexually harrassing these kids. If I had a 16 year old daughter or son, I would be outraged beyond belief if some old man was sending her or him emails or TMs like the ones Foley sent.

Yet, people have been throwing around the word "pederast" when discussing his actions.  Is he?

Aren't pederasts attracted to children?  Aren't 16 year olds sexually (if not mentally) mature?  Historically, didn't many people get married at sixteen?  When the life expectancy was only 35 or 40, the teen years would have been the time to reproduce.

Of course, times have changed as has childhood, but biology hasn't, at least not that much.

Isn't he, instead, just an extremely sleazy gay man who used his power and position in an immoral and  illegal way?

[Bunk]

Isn't he, instead, just an extremely sleazy gay man who used his power and position in an immoral and  illegal way?

Don't be silly; Republicans are not gay.

[brainfart]

what is the age of consent there for him and for the child ? in Canada the law is a bit more aggressive on prosecuting these things, I think. Also, child-molesting trips, even to other countries, is being targeted now . But especially internet molestation crime. the cops are doing good work tracking down some lost children.

here's a list of age of consent for each area.
http://teenadvice.about.com/library/wee ... tchart.htm

[A-number]

If one asks him/herself the question "would I have allowed this creature to talk like that to my child?" and the answer was no, then the answer is NO. The point is few of those who said no in hiding will come here and try to claim that they answered YES simply because the pederast happen to be republican.

I just looked up that word and I now know what it means thank you. And in all honesty I believe the creature is that. Simply because in sexual arena one thing generally leads to another. And if the creature did not have an opportunity yet to be one, It's only a matter or time, I personally believe that he has and he is a confirmed one.

[Betelnut]

Hmm, I guess no one wants to debate about this issue.  There was actually quite a lot of back and forth on it on the American Atheist blog.

Several of us were skeptical about defining someone as a pederast when the victim was not a child but a sexually mature young adult.  Sure, define him as a legally-liable creep, but not a pederast.

Some people thought that since the age difference was quite large that he could still be considered a "child molester" (or "child molester wanna-be" to be more accurate).

Others thought that a life in the closet meant that Foley was immature in his tastes and that's why he liked 'em young--he had never gotten beyond his own teenage years. (This led to a great debate on whether closeted gays are cowards and hurt other gay people.)

As for myself, as I said initially, I'd want to strangle him with his own tie if he was TMing my kid with those types of messages.  Dirty old man!

But the power of words, people, the power of words!  There is a huge difference between wanting to have sexual intercourse with a seven year old and wanting to have sexual intercourse with a sixteen year old.  The first is pederasty and a violation. The second is ... well ... not unexpected.  Seven isn't sexy; sixteen can be.

I also hate it when homosexuality is equated with pederasty.  I know a lot of gay men and not one finds young children sexy.  Not one!  

Anyone want to jump in?

[able83]

ok

to your original question; Male adult maturity is slower than female maturity.

So in this instance we are talking about preditory advances towards a 16 yr old male that has (typically) a relatively slender frame or at least limited body definition, limited body hair (in that they may not have chest or stomach hair but may develop that later), may have a voice that is still breaking - so in short this is not a sexually mature adult male.

And i think that means something.

I think Foley was(is) a pederast rather than a sleavy old man.

The be contorversial; it may be possible to argue that a he was just a sleaze if the target had been a 16 year old female, as there is thought to be a 2 year maturity gap between males and females, and so a 16 female is more "an adult" than a 16 year old male.

(either way... a sleaze that should not be defended)

[brainfart]

he was just conducting a "one-man probe" into exploited children.

[Paulhoff]

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Now, did he use his power and position in an illegal way? YES.

Paul

   

[brainfart]

the same thing happened in Canada about 10 years ago : the fox in charge of investigating the chickenhouse.

[A-number]

I just love the guy who caught him, This is what America is about, boldly catching them and exposing them for who they really are. That man is a hero to me. And the fact that no one seems to to want to talk about this, is simply due to the fact that creature is a republican, if he happened to be a democrat, then they would be aaaaaaall over his back and riding him hard. Now all sorts of pooor lame excuses are going to be pulled out as to him not really being this or that "because". He has been caught!  and doing what?! sexually prying on a little boy, A boy he, as A PUBLIC SERVANT is supposed to be protecting. This is A typical example of how much protecting the R's really do when the say they are,  based on the 'chatcha' this sad depressing and tragic clown was emitting. If he had a gram of honor, honesty and dignity in him he would have shot himself the mn he first had the tought being the all "conservative" he is!!!
Thank God, this just proves that Conservatives are anything but holier than thou, which is generally how they tend to portray themselves, much like the pharisees and saducees.

[Paulhoff]

Those who holler the loudest usually have the most to hide, I don't find it surprising at all.

Paul

   

[A-number]

You are starting to make me want to throw up.
!/- I didn't speak to you. Yet, you keep on attacking me.
2/- According to you, we either shut up and let this rat do his thing just because he is from Florida and republican like you or we are filthier than he is. Just what kind of extremely rotten mind will draw such conclusions?!!!!!
3/-Neither you nor he are above the law (You've just let your cheap pants drop, and at this point, we are exposed to a very very gross sight. yake!)
4/- Unlike you or him, I don't pry on little boys/girls, I have more grounded projects to go after. Swallow it.
5/- ONLY A rat will cover for another. So I am not shocked. Your reaction is very generic and your true color is starting to show...

Just A warning! If you are used to bullying others into shutting up because they are bringing up a truth that is not to your liking, you are dealing with a different breed here. I've shewed and spit out much "tougher" creatures than you. Even death got frightened to just give you a tiny reference point. Keep this up and we'll see who will have the last laugh, last thing I need is a jerk to come here and tell me what to think when he is not even capable of holding his pants up.

[Paulhoff]

I was writting about the right-wing and their so-called being in with god.

Paul

   

I have gone after “David” for denying the Holocaust, I have gone after people denying the rights of women with their bodies, have gone after people with their limited idea on a god and have defended people rights and you think this of me. And from all that I have posted, you come up with this, bye.

[silkworm]

I haven't read the e-mails and IM's that Foley sent, but I think it depends on what kind of relationship that the two had with each other. A  sexual crime, to me, is one in which a person is coerced, abused or otherwise forced to do something that they otherwise wouldn't normally do.  It appears that Foley got his jollies off of young men.  However, if you look at what people find attractive, it runs the gamut.  Each of us is attracted to different things about other people.  As someone else said, there is a huge difference between a seven and a sixteen year old.  Last year when the young teacher was arrested in Florida after having sex with a young boy-I can't remember how old he was, fourteen orfifteen, I think?-my husband first comment was, "Where were teachers like her when I was in high school?"  I think that each of these kinds of cases has to be looked at individually, and that "age of consent" laws are stupid.  A sixteen year old having sex with a sixteen year old is not a bad thing, if a sixteen year old develops a relationship with an "adult" why is that so much worse, as long as, as I mentioned above, there is no coersion.  What is worse, a consensual sexual relationship between a sixteen year old and an adult, or a fifty year old man raping his wife?  How responsible would we want to hold the young man if he killed his parents?  Would he be an adult then?

[Paulhoff]

The biggest thing is that he use his position in an illegal way. They were on over Clinton and now the shoe is on the other foot the right-wing says that the left-wing is only using this for votes, hypocrites.

Paul

   

[silkworm]

Oh, absolutely.    Trust me, I am not defending Foley in any way-and I find the response of the Republican leadership laughable.  But typical.  What he did is inexcusable, but I have to say, I love it when the "holier than thou" crowd gets caught with their pants down!

[Paulhoff]

I love it when the "holier than thou" crowd gets caught with their pants down!

Yea, then we find out how small they really are. There are many ways to think about that.

Paul

   

[Betelnut]

Yeah, they printed a bunch of his text messages in the Washington Post and they were laughably banal.  "Hey, I can't wait to see you.  I was a good boy in SD" etc.  They also printed the return messages.  The boy (young man) seemed pretty in the know about the situation.  They didn't seem cowed or intimidated in the least.  They might have even been playing him a bit.

Just because I'm saying I don't think he was a pedarest doesn't mean I'm "defending" him.  He is a complete {!#%@}.  I think Foley saw a young man or a few young men who he thought might be gay and started to try to insinuate himself in on them.  He couldn't have thought that they would find him attractive, even if they were gay, so obviously he was using his position of power to approach them and to send inappropriate messages. Even if these young men were 30 year old men, he doesn't have the right to sexually proposition them.

To me, a pederast likes sexually immature children, not young adults.

If you are a man now, how would you like to have been called a child when you where 16?

[brainfart]

I haven't read the e-mails and IM's that Foley sent, but I think it depends on what kind of relationship that the two had with each other. A  sexual crime, to me, is one in which a person is coerced, abused or otherwise forced to do something that they otherwise wouldn't normally do.  It appears that Foley got his jollies off of young men.  However, if you look at what people find attractive, it runs the gamut.  Each of us is attracted to different things about other people.  As someone else said, there is a huge difference between a seven and a sixteen year old.  Last year when the young teacher was arrested in Florida after having sex with a young boy-I can't remember how old he was, fourteen orfifteen, I think?-my husband first comment was, "Where were teachers like her when I was in high school?"  I think that each of these kinds of cases has to be looked at individually, and that "age of consent" laws are stupid.  A sixteen year old having sex with a sixteen year old is not a bad thing, if a sixteen year old develops a relationship with an "adult" why is that so much worse, as long as, as I mentioned above, there is no coersion.  What is worse, a consensual sexual relationship between a sixteen year old and an adult, or a fifty year old man raping his wife?  How responsible would we want to hold the young man if he killed his parents?  Would he be an adult then?

What about if I slip her the salami when she's asleep ( at least to start with )    

[silkworm]

How dangerous is she when she wakes up?     Is it worth it?

[Paulhoff]

What about if I slip her the salami when she's asleep ( at least to start with )    

I am sure, somewhere in everyone's family past that has happened, and many are here now because of it.

Paul

   

[Kitiara]

No way.
 You mean some of us are accidents?

I have been watching the Comedy Central skits on you tube all week on politics. This stuff is hysterical. Check out this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myef63LgltU

[A-number]

I would think some of the reasons why an adult shouldn't mess with a youngester is the latter needs to be given the appropriate space and time to fully mature. The adult had the time to do that to be able to pry on the small ones and think it's ok, he/she should do the same and give the same chance to the younger one. They have been given plenty of time to normally grow and have the opportunity to make the sexual choices they are now making, the younger ones need to be left alone until they get to a level they are able to make those same choices, without looking like they have been subdued into making them by a pervert predator. There is nothing wrong with a kid being intimate with another kid, though sex all together is primarely an adult activity. But an adult prying on a kid simply shows how autisitic that same adult is on one hand, how predatory (why aren't they looking to meet adults like them? because they are sick enough to want to stand over a younger one, since the younger one is, the more likely they are impressionable and easily intimidated by someone much older, and therefore easily manipulable into doing they woudn't otherwise do, and only god know what that could be).  Also, an adult going to a child is not mentally competent to get together with another adult, so they pry on somebody smaller and fragile seen from every perpective. They basically do it to have the upper hand. They don't do it out of love for that person. If I was in charge I will treat such creature like a wild wolf and get them down on sight (just kidding, I am just having fun while at it ...yeah, hunting sound really good right at this minute !!!) . At least a wolf is wild and knows not.

[silkworm]

But the definition of "child" and "adult" have changed throughout history, and depending on culture.  Again, I ask, if a sixteen year old murdered his parents, is he an "adult" then?

[A-number]

I believe he/she is still a child or a teen at the most. Today's kids are put through the most horrendous pressures on daily if not hourly basis, and from all sides in all arenas. That needs to be taken into account when it comes to deciding a kid's fate. Coming hard on a kid because they have committed a crime is not going to make them into a future model citizen. That just might contribute to exasperating them and push them over the edge to be really lost to society once and for all. If a kid killed his/her parents and gets legally taken out as result how does that resove anything? Other similar killings will take place in the future and no one will be able to prevent them.

Psalms 91:11 says : "For He shall command His angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways." There are bunch of kids that have been abused beyond belief and yet never thought about killing any of their abusers. Others pulled the trigger for  a "yes" or a "no" answer. To each their tendencies and influences. IN all humility, I think it is our responsibilty to protect them but it isn't to judge them.
Believer or not, I personally have a genuine weakness for christian schools because they instill within the kids precepts such as forgiveness. IF people took time to forgive each others, there wouldn't be so much hurt, distruction and killing. Wether Christ is a myth or not, at least some of His teachings do make plenty of sense if only one gives them a tiny chance.

I am sorry for talking so much, this is one of my sour spots because I've had it really taugh as far as physical abuse myself when I was little. That's probably why I can't seem to stop each time the subject comes up. Again, sorry .

[silkworm]

Don't be sorry, and I should be  clear-the point I was making is that in general, in the US at least, most of the population wants to throw the book at a kid that commits a crime,(for the record, I don't, all the studies I have seen about brain development and teenagers leads me to accept that a different standard applies) and treat them like an adult, but those same people turn around and state that a child(of the same age) can't make mature decisions about sex.  It's just sex.(This is why I feel differently about sex-it's just sex, as long as it is not a forced, manipulated event).  It is the context that makes it a crime.  In the Foley instance, it was inappropriate because of the position of power he was in.  I don't think that sex crimes should be classified according to age, but according to the context-was there coersion, force, manipulation, etc.  Just two instances that I can think of are the Mary Kay Letourneau case, where she went to jail twice, and had two babies from her underage partner, and now they are married.  And the case in Georgia where the young man was prosecuted for statutory rape-he had sex with a classmate, but he had just turned eighteen, and she was sixteen, I believe, it was just a few months difference that enable the prosecuter to have grounds for the case, after he couldn't make the rape charges stick-and the jury, because they were bound by law, and technically the young man had broken the law, found him guilty.  The jury didn't know that the charge carried a mandatory ten year sentance.  they werwe appalled, and stated that they never would have found him guilty if they realized that the charge carried such a harsh penatly.  This was a good kid, never got into trouble, was a good student, was headed to college, and he spent a year in jail, I believe, before either his case was appealed, or the governor pardoned him.  I can't remember.  Basing sex crimes strictly on age is lazy, and stupid, and a symptom(again, in the US) of a basic fear/disgust of sex, which I don't understand.  I have two young sons, and we teach them respect for other people, and if they have a question about sex, we answer it.  We even joke with our eight year old about it.  I am saving my pennies to buy a  Waterford crystal punch bowl to put in my bathroom, to fill with condoms.  I can't wait to see my Christmas tree the first year!

[A-number]

Don't be sorry, and I should be  clear-the point I was making is that in general, in the US at least, most of the population wants to throw the book at a kid that commits a crime,(for the record, I don't, all the studies I have seen about brain development and teenagers leads me to accept that a different standard applies) and treat them like an adult, but those same people turn around and state that a child(of the same age) can't make mature decisions about sex.

I, too am against judging a kid, none are qualified to for the simple reason none have a full picture of the kid's life. In chosing to condemn a kid in one field while giving him a full freedom in another knowing that that same kid IS whatever (same) age in both situations, those who do, simply contradict themselves and as result society end up sobotaging itself each time a kid (and more) is destroyed.

It's just sex.(This is why I feel differently about sex-it's just sex, as long as it is not a forced, manipulated event).  It is the context that makes it a crime.  In the Foley instance, it was inappropriate because of the position of power he was in.  

An example has to be made of him because he is not just an adult, he is a law maker, so him doing what he did is Extremely dangerous on many fronts.

I don't think that sex crimes should be classified according to age,

I respectfully dis-agree. Even in cases where two kids of comparable age are fooling around, one may have the capacity to unfairly sexually control the other, let alone when one is much much older. I simply see the young one just lose foot since sex is still taboo for many people and because of that, kids are extremely vulnerable when touching on the subject. So it is crucial that they be left alone until they grow and learn.

  Just two instances that I can think of are the Mary Kay Letourneau case, where she went to jail twice, and had two babies from her underage partner, and now they are married.

she was a teacher. A teacher is there to teach math, geo, computers, sciences etc. they are there as guides not as sexual predators. She is no exception. making babies is easy just watch a mouse in action. That's how easy it is.

And the case in Georgia where the young man was prosecuted for statutory rape-he had sex with a classmate, but he had just turned eighteen, and she was sixteen, I believe, it was just a few months difference that enable the prosecuter to have grounds for the case, after he couldn't make the rape charges stick-and the jury, because they were bound by law, and technically the young man had broken the law, found him guilty.  The jury didn't know that the charge carried a mandatory ten year sentance.  they werwe appalled, and stated that they never would have found him guilty if they realized that the charge carried such a harsh penatly.  This was a good kid, never got into trouble, was a good student, was headed to college, and he spent a year in jail, I believe, before either his case was appealed, or the governor pardoned him.

 

That one is an error, and big one. The problem doesn't start there in regard to rape, it starts somewhere else. Generally people are extremely superficial, and a case like this is the outcome of being that abolivious.

I can't remember.  Basing sex crimes strictly on age is lazy, and stupid, and a symptom(again, in the US) of a basic fear/disgust of sex, which I don't understand.  I have two young sons, and we teach them respect for other people, and if they have a question about sex, we answer it.  We even joke with our eight year old about it.  I am saving my pennies to buy a  Waterford crystal punch bowl to put in my bathroom, to fill with condoms.  I can't wait to see my Christmas tree the first year!

I'd rather have kid master their academics first. If they fail to do that during those first few years, they are basically screwed. On the other hand, if they await sex. They can catch up for the rest of their lives. Sex is ageless.

Peace...

[silkworm]

It's just sex.(This is why I feel differently about sex-it's just sex, as long as it is not a forced, manipulated event).  It is the context that makes it a crime.  In the Foley instance, it was inappropriate because of the position of power he was in.  

An example has to be made of him because he is not just an adult, he is a law maker, so him doing what he did is Extremely dangerous on many fronts.

I agree with you-but not because of his age, because of his position.  Anyone in a position of power has the potential to manipulate a person sexually.  I think that the later example of a teacher should also lose her job-because of the manipulative position they could find themselves in.

I don't think that sex crimes should be classified according to age,

I respectfully dis-agree. Even in cases where two kids of comparable age are fooling around, one may have the capacity to unfairly sexually control the other, let alone when one is much much older. I simply see the young one just lose foot since sex is still taboo for many people and because of that, kids are extremely vulnerable when touching on the subject. So it is crucial that they be left alone until they grow and learn.

Again, the reprimand should come as a result of the manipulation or control, if one kid-even the same age-is manipulating the other, there should be consequences.  

  Just two instances that I can think of are the Mary Kay Letourneau case, where she went to jail twice, and had two babies from her underage partner, and now they are married.

she was a teacher. A teacher is there to teach math, geo, computers, sciences etc. they are there as guides not as sexual predators. She is no exception. making babies is easy just watch a mouse in action. That's how easy it is.

The point is, you can't legislate love.  I have no idea why a woman would be interested in a boy half her age, a teenager, but there is no law against being immature.  While there are teachers that are sexual predators, I don't think that this case qualifies.  You have to look  at each situation individually.  If there bloomed a relationship between two people, one of mutual respect, that led to a sexual relationship, who are we to judge?  Now, if a person is targeting kids, abusing them, and moving onto the next playyard, that is altogether different.  I helped make two babies, I know how easy it is!

And the case in Georgia where the young man was prosecuted for statutory rape-he had sex with a classmate, but he had just turned eighteen, and she was sixteen, I believe, it was just a few months difference that enable the prosecuter to have grounds for the case, after he couldn't make the rape charges stick-and the jury, because they were bound by law, and technically the young man had broken the law, found him guilty.  The jury didn't know that the charge carried a mandatory ten year sentance.  they werwe appalled, and stated that they never would have found him guilty if they realized that the charge carried such a harsh penatly.  This was a good kid, never got into trouble, was a good student, was headed to college, and he spent a year in jail, I believe, before either his case was appealed, or the governor pardoned him.

 

That one is an error, and big one. The problem doesn't start there in regard to rape, it starts somewhere else. Generally people are extremely superficial, and a case like this is the outcome of being that abolivious.

But it grows out of the same attitude that says that kids have to be protected from sex, and that they can't make their own jdecisions regarding sex.   Statutory rape laws are specifically there so that a person can be charged solely on his/her age, when no actual rape has taken place.

I can't remember.  Basing sex crimes strictly on age is lazy, and stupid, and a symptom(again, in the US) of a basic fear/disgust of sex, which I don't understand.  I have two young sons, and we teach them respect for other people, and if they have a question about sex, we answer it.  We even joke with our eight year old about it.  I am saving my pennies to buy a  Waterford crystal punch bowl to put in my bathroom, to fill with condoms.  I can't wait to see my Christmas tree the first year!

I'd rather have kid master their academics first. If they fail to do that during those first few years, they are basically screwed. On the other hand, if they await sex. They can catch up for the rest of their lives. Sex is ageless.

Peace...

[/quote]

Why does it have to be either/or?  I was in high school when I was "deflowered" and it didn't affect my studies at all.  Most of my girlfriends were sexually active far earlier than I was, and their education wasn't adversly affected.  I hope that a person spends the rest of their lives educating themselves, as well as enjoying sex.

[A-number]

I agree with you-but not because of his age, because of his position.  Anyone in a position of power has the potential to manipulate a person sexually.  I think that the later example of a teacher should also lose her job-because of the manipulative position they could find themselves in.

Age, -regardless of power and stature-, breeds maturity and wisdom. If a 16 years old makes a mistake, his age is a factor (to his benefit), if a 40 years does the same thing, depending on the ramifications of it, he has to be held accountable, period. Whether he has a powerful position or not is irrelevant. Society expects him to act according to his age first, then to  his position second.

Again, the reprimand should come as a result of the manipulation or control, if one kid-even the same age-is manipulating the other, there should be consequences.

again, I go back to re-iterating that the age is an important factor. Throughout one's age, comes learning and experience, that is why it is relevant.  

The point is, you can't legislate love.

yes, you can for the older ones. The younger ones need first and formost guidance and nurturing.

 I have no idea why a woman would be interested in a boy half her age, a teenager, but there is no law against being immature.

If a guy came to her when she was 13, woudn't the state hang him???! and they should, she is a child. A child needs  a parently love not a pervert's private parts.

While there are teachers that are sexual predators, I don't think that this case qualifies.

why not?! we want to be guys equals but we are not willing to be held up to the same standards they are forced to live by. If she really truly loved that kid, she would have backed off and let him be A kid, just as she has been allowed to be one herself. Laying down and spreading her legs for a 13 years old her being 42 and daring to get pregnant simply makes her just another disguised cheap crook. There is no glamour in it.

But it grows out of the same attitude that says that kids have to be protected from sex, and that they can't make their own jdecisions regarding sex.   Statutory rape laws are specifically there so that a person can be charged solely on his/her age, when no actual rape has taken place.

I am afraid the problem is deeper than it looks. I would have to pass on answering this because that would start a thread within a thread.

Why does it have to be either/or?  I was in high school when I was "deflowered" and it didn't affect my studies at all.  Most of my girlfriends were sexually active far earlier than I was, and their education wasn't adversly affected.

It is not a matter of either/or, it is a matter of process, the process of growing. There are kids who have been taught to wait and it is wise. they do good in school, they are athletic, they have many talents, they are focused, their parents love them and they love them back. Their lives are properly loaded. Sex has no place or room in there, they don't need it. And beside when they are ready to have a relationship, the innocence, sacredness of it is still there.

Others, and I am not saying it is you. But others simply just don't know what self control means when it comes to anything including sex. Now-a-days, sex is directly tied to alcohol, drugs, prostitution and what not for today's kids, that is why while some might be able to keep its practice under lid, others simply are not able to.  And through those society gets rottened little by little without anybody even noticing it. One sees 15 years olds caring for their babies when they should be enjoying themsleves, one sees kids running away, families torn apart etc.

I hope that a person spends the rest of their lives educating themselves, as well as enjoying sex.

I've heard many testemonies of women talking about their sexual partners and commenting about how they do not trust them, yet they go ahead and continue to give them access to their  atmost intimate parts!!!!!!!they might hav enjoyed sex, but I think they still do have serious problem with their self worth. It is easy to let down, the challenge remains in waiting for the right person and for the right time. The challenge is practicing some self control.  Cheap intercourse is just that: cheap.

[brainfart]

the challenge remains in waiting for the right person and for the right time. The challenge is practicing some self control. Cheap intercourse is just that: cheap.

It's dirty - and even more so when spanking is involved.

[silkworm]

A-number wrote,

It is not a matter of either/or, it is a matter of process, the process of growing. There are kids who have been taught to wait and it is wise. they do good in school, they are athletic, they have many talents, they are focused, their parents love them and they love them back. Their lives are properly loaded. Sex has no place or room in there, they don't need it. And beside when they are ready to have a relationship, the innocence, sacredness of it is still there.

You are making it a matter of either or, and selling kids short in the process.  People become obsessed with sex when it is made forbidden, and it is society's attitudes towards it that makes people in general, and kids in particular, feel bad about it.  You can't stop the sex drive of a teenager by exhausting them with "other activities to load them up" and I don't think we should.  Sex is a natural part of existance, and shouldn't be feared.  In other cultures, sexual activity takes place as naturally as breathing, and at much younger ages.  Unfortunately, we are stuck with this one.  

As far as men being treated unfairly, I totally agree.  I don't think either gender should be held to the kinds of laws we have today.  For the record, I think that in place of, or in addition to, "sensitivity training"  we need to teach people how to stand up for themselves.  A man never touched me-even men who I was attracted to-unless invited.  Ever.  Not a pat on the bottom, a kiss on the cheek, nothing.  And I made it very clear that that was to be the case.  I have been lucky to not be in the position of a powerless victim, however, but several of my closest women friends have not been so lucky.  But because of the stigma attached to sex, they chose not to come forward, and their attackers were never charged with anything.  I gather from an earlier post that you have been misused sexually in some way, and that is unforgivable.  Sex should never be used as a weapon.

The best thing we can do for our kids, is to answer their questions-with solid, truthful answers, teenagers know when we are being evasive-teach them not to fear sex, but  to respect others feelings about sex, and especially any partner they may have, and to give them birth control.  We all make mistakes, and we continue to make them throughout our lives-I have known some forty years olds that have less sense than some sixteen years olds.  Not that common, granted, but age is not the best deciding factor in these cases.

But others simply just don't know what self control means when it comes to anything including sex.

You can never make anyone behave just because you want them to.  There will always be people that have no control over themselves-whether it is drugs, alcohol, gambling or sex.  But fearing sex as something evil and dirty isn't the answer.  The healthier the attitudes about sex, the less of an issue it becomes.  In my family, my parents answered all of my questions, they never gave me "we'll tell you when  you are older" and sex just naturally became a part-just a part-of my life.  My life has never revolved around sex-although I have seen many of my friends, whose parents tried to keep them from having sex until "they were older" completely wreck their lives in part because of this attitude.

Now-a-days, sex is directly tied to alcohol, drugs, prostitution and what not for today's kids, that is why while some might be able to keep its practice under lid, others simply are not able to.

And look at the attitudes that we have had about sex.  It has never been a healthy, overall, just a part of  life attitude.  It has always been somthing that you keep hidden, that "good girls" don't do.  Even today, with billboards, and other types of advertising, with sex all around us, it is still the same.  Sex is forbidden.  Unless you are married, and trying to have babies.  It is an absurd.

Cheap intercourse can also be fun, and not damaging.  It depends on the circumstances.  It is just sex.

[Paulhoff]

A lot of mental problems we have today are from making people feel shame and secretive about many things that are natural. A lot of it comes from ideas from the christian’s world that makes the natural world sinful and impure.

Paul

   

[A-number]

A lot of mental problems we have today are from making people feel shame and secretive about many things that are natural. A lot of it comes from ideas from the christian’s world that makes the natural world sinful and impure.

Paul

   

you are mixing tomatoes with ...eeerrrr, cheesecake !!! check out the below link, last night I caught it on NBC dateline, it's a story of a beautiful 16 years old girl who has been killed, burnt, decapitated then burried deep in the woods by supposedly one of her females best friends and a kid she has made out with just 2 days before they cannibalized her. And all this in the name of sex. Apparently the three of them were sexually messing with each other. Is this what you call natural? isn't it baberic, sick and monsterous more than it is natural? to each their own perspective...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

once you open the page, please click on "circle of friends".

[A-number]

the challenge remains in waiting for the right person and for the right time. The challenge is practicing some self control. Cheap intercourse is just that: cheap.

It's dirty - and even more so when spanking is involved.

            yep, you spoke !

[Chachacha]

I think that having sex with a child (which I consider to be 13 and younger) damages the child and is, therefore, unexcusable.  I think that an adult having sex with a teenager is a sign of immaturity, poor judgment, and poor impulse control, and likely low self-esteem and self-destructive tendencies.  The two are as different as night and day.  I do not think it is abnormal to recognize the sexual allure of a teenager but it is abnormal to see a child as a something to be used for sexual gratification.  Children trust adults to take care of them and do what's best for them - anything else is a betrayal of that trust.

I don't think of people that have, or want to have sex with teenagers as pedophiles or pederasts, both which imply pre-pubescents to me.  

The problem with Foley, teachers, scout leaders, priests, people that teens babysit for, parents of teenager's friends, etc., having sex with teenagers, IMO, is the betrayal of trust that adults/parents place in adults in those positions NOT to have sex with their children.  Personally, I feel that ALL adults should be role-models for children and teenagers and they should put the interest of children and teenagers before thier own self-interests.

[Paulhoff]

you are mixing tomatoes with ...eeerrrr, cheesecake !!! check out the below link, last night I caught it on NBC dateline, it's a story of a beautiful 16 years old girl who has been killed, burnt, decapitated then burried deep in ......

Apparently you have a very narrow focus on things and don’t see the big picture, I said nothing of murder, sex and or cannibalism.

Paul

   

If you don’t understand where I am coming from, ask me, not some website.

[silkworm]

you are mixing tomatoes with ...eeerrrr, cheesecake !!! check out the below link, last night I caught it on NBC dateline, it's a story of a beautiful 16 years old girl who has been killed, burnt, decapitated then burried deep in the woods by supposedly one of her females best friends and a kid she has made out with just 2 days before they cannibalized her. And all this in the name of sex. Apparently the three of them were sexually messing with each other. Is this what you call natural? isn't it baberic, sick and monsterous more than it is natural? to each their own perspective...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

once you open the page, please click on "circle of friends".

I couldn't get the report to open, but I read what was on the website.  I think you are jumping the gun here.  Even if they performed some sort of sexual ritual, killing someone isn't about sex.  It is about disturbed individuals.  The most important thing we can do, to prepare kids, it to teach them what a normal sexual relationship is.  Not sheild them from it, not lie to them about it, but to answer thier questions, so that if it happens, they can recognize an the abnormal.  Trying to pretend that teenagers aren't going to have sex, because we tell them that it is wrong, or they are too young, or "look what happened to this girl" is living in a fantasy world.  

Chachacha summarized all the rambling I've been doing-I've been talking about sexually mature young persons, not children.  An adult wanting to have sex with a prepubescent child is abnormal.  But we have to teach our kids this, what is normal, what isn't, and how to protect themselves-both from predators and from unwanted pregnancy and disease.  We do them a diservice to treat them like they are five.  You'll  notice that when a child asks a sexual question, it is the adults that get embarrassed, not the kid.  A funny thing that used to happen to me, I used to volunteer at our local Aquarium, and there is an underwater viewing area for the dolphins.  Well, male dophins are not shy, and the kids would all crowd around the glass, asking "what is that thing."  The adults went the gamut from chuckling to mortified, but the kids, once you told them, were happy with the answer, and went about their way.  Parents and adults tend to project onto kids their experiences, in the fear that the negative things that happened to them, are likely to happen to their kids, so they try to protect them, instead of prepare them.

[silkworm]

double post. Damned old computer!

[A-number]

 
Apparently you have a very narrow focus on things

by "narrow focus" do you mean that I have cornered you?! this is an answer not a question.

and don’t see the big picture,

you mean your picture of kids being "natural", as natural as wild animals along with child molesters and sex offenders are? animals are natural !!!!! they are also non-thinking animals, with no intellect and, standards,  and sense of judgement. Now I am really starting to see where you come from, thank you for the clarification.

I said nothing of murder, sex and or cannibalism.

Neither have I, and the truth of the matter is the above example is a single scenario of what your "natural ways" often lead to. You must be too stoned to see the truth of it all, and instead focuse solely on your self-centredness, because someone like you  of course "is never wrong", and not only that, when an unbiased person points out to them an important relevant point, instead of acknowledging it (the above story clearly demonstrates where you "nature" ends), they turn to smearing and mocking in hope that the person will be lost in that empty baseless filth.
Your strategy is dishonest and mediocre.

If you don’t understand where I am coming from, ask me

I know where you come from: the woods!!!

not some website.

Apparently you don't understand your own language or you don't care reading the replies to your own garbage:

1-/I didn't ask any website.
2-/I logged off the computer once I replied your waste, the same day, yes, the very same day!!! in the evening, was browsing through channels, and run into the dateline show (look up their {!#%@} schedule), coincidence!? maybe, I don't know and I don't care. After I realized what the story was about, I thought you might want to take a look for the all Grand ignorant that you are. The following day, googled the NBCdateline link (YOU KNOW THE http://WWW.GOOGLE.COM JUST IN CASE YOU NEED TO BE TOLD ABOUT THAT TOOO?), the MSNBC one came first, and sure enough, the story was on PAGE # ONE!!!!!


now, what can I say? ...Savor the fruits  of your "nature"...



PS: "It is Perilous to waist my time."

[Paulhoff]

How you can misread what I write is beyond me, you seem to have an agenda, that is to bad. I do not know what your agenda is with, but if I did, you wouldn't read what I write correctly anyway and you will only what you see what you want to see, that is a shame.

Paul

   

It has nothing to do with being wrong, it just bringing out other ways of looking at something, or is it like christian about their god having only "ONE WAY".