FSTDT

Timmy #fundie forum.iomfats.org

We have determined, as a society, that sex with a person under the age of consent is unlawful, and we have delegated this decision to those whom we allow to draft the laws. Thus, certainly in a democracy, we have agreed, at least implicitly, that no such sexual acts are allowed.

And yet some children who are pre-pubertal flirt like crazy, or are in some way alluring, perhaps sexually attractive. It is not wrong to be attracted to them, though it is unlawful to do more than be attracted in a very passive manner. I surmise that almost all adult males and many adult females have found at least one child in some manner sexually attractive and that none of them will admit it for fear of reprisals.

I argue with your words "Sexual Preference" on the simple basis that sexuality is an orientation. I happen to be homosexual. My preference would be to be heterosexual. Orientation and preference are by no means the same thing even if they occupy the same part of the spectrum of sexuality. Homosexuality is inconvenient in so many ways, though I am stuck with it. I would far prefer to be heterosexual for all of those reasons. But I am aroused by the male not the female.

As puberty takes hold the child turns into the man or the woman they will become, slowly. The animal in us wishes to mate with those relevant to our orientation. The society member in us chooses, usually, to allow time to pass until they pass legal age. But our instinct to mate is something we have to suppress actively. Schoolteachers must have an amazing amount of self restraint.

aschenbach #fundie forum.iomfats.org

I find Timmy's experiences rather interesting, for they show a child or a young adolescent does not need to be seen necessarily as a "victim" even in the presence of some sort of titillation or groping. More generally, kids discover sexuality mainly through the changes in their bodies and through interaction with their peers and they can mostly evaluate either by themselves or collectively what they do or do not wish to do sexually, although sexual discovery implies necessarily progressive traumas (in terms of pushing boundaries, not of violence).

I find the idea of an age of consent absolutely disturbing, as if desire could be restrained by law, which is something that belongs to totalitarian regimes, although democracies seem to advocate it in order to protect kids.

In most cases the law does not protect anyone, it actually creates occasions for molesters to act in the dark and abuse their power in order to obtain sexual favors from someone who is underage. Actually, being able to express love for a 13 or 14-year-old kid openly will protect him much more, for most of the psychological blackmail that takes place in these cases and takes advantage of embarrassing secrets would have no reason to exist.

I think the body will tell the boy whether he wishes to explore sexual acts or not and if the act is not socially stigmatized and the adult respects the limits of the boy's wishes, then for me there is no issue at all. We seem to see sex as something problematic just because Eros is a very powerful drive but most people do not see that it is repression to damage people, not sex.

Timmy #fundie forum.iomfats.org

What I wanted to discuss instead is where youth organisations would be without those who genuinely love children, and who can keep their hands off them. The keeping of their hands off them is important. I see very little wrong with window-shopping. Touching is a totally different matter.

Today we are prurient. We insist on knowing what others do with their genitalia. News media fantasise about what might or might not have taken place, what might or might not take place.

So where would the different youth movements, those for boys, those for girls, be without those who love children, potentially those who have fantasy liaisons with some individuals, but who never touch?