Children Sexually Abusing Each Other - Who is wrong here? Society or the kids?
 

I've just been looking over this, which is basically a blurb about the growing number of cases of children abusing each other sexually, in some cases consensually.

It kind of struck me how there seems to be this idea that sex is bad, especially among children, but to be honest I'm having a hard time figuring out why it's such a taboo. Why are we teaching our kids that it's bad to touch each other? Sex is the only thing that keeps our species going, and there's a theory that suggests early human children would 'practice' intercourse. Really, is telling a boy not to touch another boy going to do any good? If society didn't find sex to be wrong, would any of these problems exist?

I know this is kinda controversial and everything, and I'm sure there are going to be a few people who will say "children touching each other is bad". But just step outside the mindset of society for a moment, and ask yourself WHY it's bad. Getting any gobbledegook about innocence yet? Yeah so am I. And it doesn't make any sense or answer any questions. Although reporters like to put this down to children enacting things they see on TV and the internet, the reality is that they're almost always using their imagination, and doing it because they want to. I can remember my best friend in primary school being confused because he found another boy attractive, and when he talked to his parents about it, they just gave him a typically homophobic response. He had no idea what gay people were, and niether did I - it wasn't until he got caught attempting to have sex with the kid that it was explained to him that some men like men. But he was still told that what he did was inappropriate, even though it was consensual.

I'm at a real mental conflict here, mostly fighting the society conditioned part of my brain which is telling me that endorsing child sex is just as bad as paedophilia, but then there is the part of my brain which says that society is the problem, and if sex wasn't such a taboo, maybe we wouldn't have so many sex related problems because everyone would do it and it would be totally natural. Because that's all we're doing here when we tell these kids that they're behaving inappropriately, we're trying to supress homosexuality and sexuality. Supressing natural behaviour. Surely this is what causes sexual deviants? Supressing natural behaviour must do some kind of mental damage to some people... Or maybe not? Perhaps society has got a point? :\

Meh, interesting. I can't really say much. Should kids fuck? It seems wrong in my head but you're right, there is no reason or justification for this opinion. At least they wouldn't have children (until puberty).

I not saying they shouldn't, but really, is it that necessary? Shouldn't they be trading ****ing Yu-Gi-Oh cards or something?

One thing that the issue brings up - Children having children. Having a five year old child when you're 16 probably wouldn't help you learn in school.

Sex before puberty is stupid, and shows how sexually obsessed our society really is.

Use protection, kiddies, and I don't care. But wouldn't you find a ten year old going into a dairy asking for condoms be slightly odd? O.o

Kids at school raping each other? That is some crazy stuff.

Thank you, so, so much for extending the conversation to a new level of intelligence.

:rolleyes:

Yes, it is weird.

Yes but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be so sexually obsessed if it hadn't made sex a taboo. What you're not supposed to have is the one thing you want the most. That kinda thing.

But also you seem to've avoided a point. Whether you think it's stupid or not doesn't matter. It's not stupid if this is what this kiddies want to do. Obviously encourage them to use condoms when they get to puberty, but really what is so bad about it? Stop listening to what society has ingrained into you for a moment, and start thinking scientifically. It is considered to be the case that early human children "practiced" intercourse, so really why should this be any different? They also "practiced" hunting, which is where children playing comes from. They learn the skills that they need to survive when they're young, but we simply supress them. See where I'm going?

I see where you're going, crystal clear. But I just find that sex before puberty is futile. What is the point? You obviously couldn't actually get your partner pregnant, and isn't that the main purpose of sex?

See where I'm going? I'm saying they can do it, but it really doesn't serve a purpose. Except, of corse, for pleasure.

I don't want to think about that when drinking milk... Stop it! :p

This is pretty weird, but I am listening to "All your Goodies are Gone" at this point. Anyhow, children are getting to many mixed messages about sex. Its bad! Its good! No, wait its... Earlier and more frank discussions concerning sex and its pros and cons is well welcomed. What the word needs is MORE love and MORE sensuality. Just not between minors.
/Britain's age of consent laws are sick from what I've read
// Not as bad as Spain. Effing 12.

Britain's age of consent laws are fine. It seems to be your opinion of them that's faulty. Why is it "sick"? What's so sick about it?

WHY not between minors? What's the problem with it? Sorry if I seem oblivious but this is the whole topic of the thread, and nobody has ever managed to explain to me why exactly it's a problem.

I've already said this twice, and I'll say it again because you're not getting the point apparantly.

Practice... but mainly human nature bred into us from thousands of years ago.

Meh, there it is, take it or leave it.

Practice, practice, yeah. But that's what blow up dolls are for.

'Nuff said.

Yeah, they were going to lower the age to 13 over here at the start of the year. Doesn't that just mean paedophiles can have consensual sex with kiddies, legally? O.o

Blow up dolls?

You're desperately trying to avoid the eventuality of a child screwing a child aren't you?

:D Ah, LOL. No, no, I just think it's pointless for a child to screw another child. What could benefit? Practice. Meh.

They can do it, I just don't want to know about it.

He is never 9 years old.

Anyway, this is all cool about practice and stuff, but what happens when the children start ganging up and raping adults. They're under control for a reason you know. ;)

Why on earth would they gang up and rape an adult? Sex is sex, it doesn't matter who it's with, especially to a child who isn't aware of sexual attractiveness. I believe the vast majority of rapists find the act of rape appealing because, again, it's something that they can't have, something that they want but they aren't allowed, so instead they just take it by force. This is almost like a failsafe to ensure the survival of the human race, reproduction at all costs.

So do you plan on only have sex for the purpose of having children?

And i agree with where Dino's going with this,if kiddies have sexual attractions with other children they should be allowed to have sex..it's only stupid if they don't use protection but now days they'd probably have condoms pouring out of their wallets..unless they dont turn on there tv and never leave the house which is kinda depressing but anyway what i'm trying to say is 'under age' safe sex should be allowed and schools should teach kids that sex is fine because my primary school(and many others) didn't think that way when i was a youngin.

heck i found out what sex was from the internet since sex was like a forbidden word at the primary school i went to and to be honest i thought sex was a bad thing from what i was taught at that school only later on in the final years of primary school did i look into the subject more and realise that it wasn't a bad thing at all.

Comparing Homosexuality to the sexual voraciousness of children won't work. Surely one could argue that children are copying what they see on TV, since until they reach puberty they wouldn't have any sexual feelings. Homosexuality, however, is based upon an attraction, which is natural.

I don't know if my point has been well put across here, but i'm tired and shtuffs so meh.

That isn't true. I personally have experienced sexual feelings, and know of several others who were the same, well before puberty set in. I never acted on them, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. I knew of people who did act on them, and I was always aware of the school playground fascination with sex. Kids would talk about sex and bodyparts and they would giggle, teachers would roll their eyes, but they don't realise that this "immature" behaviour is simply because they've made sex "bad" or "naughty". You tell a kid not to do something, and he will simply find more joy in doing it.

I think that too much of this stuff is plagued with stupid myths. Goddamn when will people realise that spending so much time "preserving innocence" isn't helping? Innocence is subjective, and is totally meaningless if it stops you from doing what you want to do.

Out of intrigue, what's the difference between a child having consensual relations with an adult and consensual relations with another child?

I can only think of one obvious answer. The adult has more developed sexual organs.

Speaking on the behalf of females, our genitals take so long to mature. If you compare the cervix of a 13-year-old to that of an adult, there is an astonishing difference. Severe damage could be done to the female body if sexual activity starts at these early ages, which would increase the chances of infertility and such. I don't even want to imagine what degree of damage would be done by mature males to girls who haven't reached puberty.

But I suppose that particular problem could be avoided by merely changing the present laws: All people under the age of consent (although it would no longer be called that) could sleep with each other, but those over that age would not be allowed to have sexual contact with them. Or something like that.

Furthermore on the increased chances of infertility, contracting STDs at early ages is also an apparent risk.

*Edits after reading the topic*

Britain's age of consent is 16. I don't see any problem with that, i myself am 16 and am fully aware of the consequences of sex. I have condoms knocking about somewhere, and don't see any problem with having sex at my age.

Just looking on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

A lot of the world's age of consent is lower than 16. So i don't see why ours is pointed out as sick?

EDIT: Oh wow, apparently it's 15 for men. But i think this is one of our laws that is enforced in a completely different way to what it states should happen. The information fed to me was a blanket age of Consent of 16, unless in the position of trust thing

Edit the third - Hmm, Interpol says different. I don't know. Confuddling...

Well i depends on how old the child E.G: If the child was 8 sex would be innapropriate and pointless because he has not developed (as in puberty) he can't exactly put fcking to good use, however if they had gone through puberty well...I dunno maybe.

This is one of those iffy subjects. Personally, I find that any sexual relationships before 13 is pushing it. Children are NOT aware of the risks involved. That being said, I was pretty sure of myself when I became sexually active at 13 or 14 (it's vague). Looking back, I probably didn't realise all the risks involved, but I don't regret it - it was fun, afterall :p

Alcar...

Umm..don't guy's not have sperm before the age of 13?, if so there aren't any risks are there?.

However, the riskes of sexually transmitted diseases are still there. And, males run the risk of 'becoming' aware of their newfound ejaculatory skills midway during intercourse. I'm sure that'd be a great way to find yourself introduced to manhood: getting some chick pregnant at 13.

As far as I remember, I was fully able to ejaculate at 13. But with everything, it always differs.

Alcar...

Yes, you develop your..umm are there kid's on this forum? *whisper*sperm*whisper* at 13 and can make a women pregnant. I've never heard of this sexual desease thing befor though maybe we should teach kids all about sex at a younger age?.

'I can only think of one obvious answer. The adult has more developed sexual organs.'

I think this proves my point. Even when full intercourse hasn't occured between an adult and a child, the child still manages to become mentally f*cked up and hate the fact that the sexual relations occured when they did.

In all honesty, this does reek of NAMBLA's own beliefs.

I think you're missing it.

Firstly, it's only inappropriate because society has told you that it's inappropriate. Society has given you these meaningless illogical values that sex is bad, and for adults only.

Secondly, it's not pointless. It has been proven that children can and often do enjoy sex in their own way. So remove yourself from your society bred thoughts for a moment, and ask yourself why it's bad to do something enjoyable.

It's actually impossible to get an STD from a virgin. The only time it can happen is if someone is born with AIDs. Therefore STDs aren't really a problem among children. They'd only start when adults started having sex with children, and one could argue that the morality of that is shaky, due to the fact that children are inherantly more vulnerable and don't know any better when they're just being abused, which I feel would still be possible if sex was normalised.

What's NAMBLA? A member here or something?

That aside I don't get your point. I can't see a reason why a child would be mentally fucked up by doing something so natural. In fact I think Society making sex a bad thing does more damage than normalising it ever would. Imagine how free of crime and sexual tension the world would be, if we just screwed as casually as we laughed, cried, ate, and drank.

'What's NAMBLA?'

NAMBLA stands for 'National Man-Boy Love Association' which is basically a group of Paedophiles and Child molesters stating that abusing a child is healthy for both the abuser and the abusee. I believe this also extends to children performing acts upon each other.

'That aside I don't get your point.'

It's not a point, it's a fact. Do you know any abused children who genuinely feel more wholesome after Uncle Barry groomed them into getting into their bed?

Society, also, doesn't make sex a bad thing. It makes it a thing that should be treated with care and consideration. So what that we tell kids that only adults should do it, i don't necessarily see how this is bad?

Okay, so, kids may enjoy sex at an earlier age, but they may also enjoy alcohol and drugs to, does that mean we should allow them to experiment with both of these two things?

But this isn't about allowing abuse. This isn't about "allowing" anything. It's about whether society telling us that sex is bad is what makes sex among children bad, or whether there is actually a reason for it. I mean, are these kids deviants/misbehaving or is this just natural, scientifically explicable behaviour that's being supressed by society? That's what this is about. I'm not condoning sex with children, and I don't want to have sex with children, partly because I don't want to, and partly because we live in a society that has dictated that sex is mostly bad, especially among or with children. But I can see beyond those imposed values, and imagine a world where sex is just about as mundane and everyday as laughing or eating.