Delete the paedophilia threads

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 6th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Neurodevelopmental MRI studies indicate this executive area of the brain is one of the last parts of the brain to reach maturity ....

.... In a study of minors ages 5 through 17, white matter within the prefrontal area of the frontal lobes steadily increased with age, likely reflecting the advances of myelination ....

.... A recent longitudinal MRI study captured common patterns of development by rescanning the same children and adolescents ages 4 to 21 every two years over the course of a ten-year period. Researchers found that the maturation of the brain cortex, or outer layer, followed “regionally relevant milestones in cognitive and functional development,” ... with “[p]arts of the brain associated with more basic functions matur[ing] early.” .... Again, the study confirmed that “[l]ater to mature were areas involved in executive function, attention, and motor coordination (frontal lobes).” ....

.... (EEG study revealed that, between age 15 and adulthood, fiber networks focused primarily in the frontal lobes grew, allowing for greater functional associations among the regions of the brain).

Emerging from the neuropsychological research is a striking view of the brain and its gradual maturation, in far greater detail than seen before. Although the precise underlying mechanisms continue to be explored, what is certain is that, in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain’s executive functions.

(ibid, 9-12)

Ok, so "in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete". This doesn't mean that all adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding sexuality.

Again, you are looking at fundamental differences in decision making processes—and, as such, capabilities—between children and adolescents on the one hand, and adults to the other.

Sorry Tiassa, but I did not reach that conclusion at all. The only think that seems apparent from all of this is that the brain continues to evolve during adolescence. Nowhere does it say that all adolescents aren't capable of engaging in informed sexual interactions.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 7th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

If a certain type of man or woman is, on average, a worse parent, does that mean that we should stereotype -all- these men or women (the proverbial 'red neck', say) and not allow them to reproduce or even engage in sexual activities?

If you can show a neuropsychological basis for it, the thesis would at least be arguable.

On this we can agree atleast. If.

I find it highly amusing that you yourself are only buttressing my case. Approximate indeed . What we are using is extremely fuzzy logic, based on statistics. I believe we should stop relying on statistics to determine who is and isn't mature and instead attempt to measure maturity directly. At first, it can be in conjunction with age, just as it is with a driver's license, for instance. However, as time goes on, we could rely more on the license and less on the age, both up or down.

If we go by the data, we push those age barriers back. Maybe driving at 18, voting, jury duty, and war service at 21. Marriage at 21, probably.

I have definitely not been persuaded of this at all by the data you have provided.

Attempting to measure maturity directly in order to determine social status? I must admit, there's some economic stimulus to be found in compulsory testing of millions—billions, over time—of Americans to make sure they're ready to have sex.

And I beg your pardon if I find that highly amusing.

Be amused all you like. However, I think it makes far more sense to test people for maturity then to rely on statistical probabilities of such.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 8th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Of course. Tiassa, you're only looking at this one way; that of adults wanting to bang minors.

This entire child-banging theme of late keeps bringing me back to a great quote from The Simpsons (#AABF18, "They Saved Lisa's Brain"):

Comic Book Guy: Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more.​

Another good Simpsons episode . However, I don't see how that quote connects to what we're talking about...

What you fail to see is that minors are also interested in adults, as well as themselves.

I would contest that assertion and suggest that what you're failing to account for is that such interest exists in the context of the fundamental differences in decision-making processes in adolescent and adult brains.

I'm going to take a guess at what you're trying to convey to me here: are you trying to say that minors simply aren't mature enough to know that having sexual interactions with adults is bad for them?

Furthermore, one or both of these groups of people aren't necessarily interested in banging at all, or atleast during the time that they're that age; there are many other sexual activities.

I once knew a girl who swore—and cited her aunt, who was allegedly a doctor—that you can't contract HIV through oral sex.

While it is possible, from what I've heard it's certainly rare; for the uninfected person giving the oral sex, must there be a cut in the mouth for it to be transmitted or can it actually go through the digestive system and infect? Also, in reverse; for the uninfected person receiving the oral sex, must there be a cut in the genital for it to be transmitted or can saliva infect a person that way?

Pregnancy, ofcourse, is not possible.

And it is observable that young children masturbate. I've actually witnessed this behavior—unquestionably—in a three year-old. Nothing about that fact means that the girl needs some thirty year-old diddling her clit.

Technically we don't even need to live. The question shouldn't be about what people need but what people -desire-, balanced against what would benefit society in general. In terms of your example, I think that we have to be realistic; I believe that sexual contact between adults and pre pubescents will be off limits in terms of the law for the foreseeable future when it comes to adults unless you're living in a country with islamic laws. Therefore, I think the main focus should be on teenage minors.

 

[Challenger78]

Like I said; sane people do not question the merits of the current laws we have in place to keep it illegal.

Are you questioning the validity of those specific laws?

I'm not making a general case that laws should never be challenged. I'm just saying that in this case, they need not be.

Really? What about a 16 year old screwing a 15 year old ?

The line blurs with teenagers.

 

[leopold]

Really? What about a 16 year old screwing a 15 year old ?

The line blurs with teenagers.

there are certainly going to be special cases.
the outcome is decided in our courts.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 9th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Then, ofcourse, there's also the fact that minors don't exactly have free reign with other minors either, as I made abundantly clear in an ethics thread. Yes, I know there are some exemptions for close age but let's be frank about it; how many children, especially girls, can tell their parents that they want to have sex with their boyfriends?

Again, "three gets you five". I couldn't tell you at what point I start being comfortable with that gap. I was seventeen, my girlfriend fifteen, so on principle I can't say a whole lot about that. But a fifteen year-old on a twelve year-old? Or eleven, if we want to throw out that gap? That's definitely worrisome.

It's worrisome to the society we live in today. It's not necessarily worrisome to past societies. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest things to worry about, at any age, are things such as if it's something both parties want and stds. After a certain age and before a much later age, there is also the possibility of pregnancy, which can be very wanted, unwanted, or somewhere in between, depending on the situation.

Maybe you've already forgotten high school. I'm thirty-five and I still remember thinking parents were being way too simplistic about the "just say no" philosophy.

They were. They still are.

I still remember how insanely cruel kids can be to one another.

They still are that too.

The only difference between then and now, in fact, is that it's a hell of a lot easier now to tell people to fuck off when I need to.

Yep...

Because of the fundamental differences between adolescent and adult decision-making processes, it's a hell of a lot harder to shame me into doing something I don't want to do.

It was always very hard to pressure me into doing something I didn't want to do; when I was in preschool or thereabouts, a teacher told my mother that I was a boy that wouldn't bend to peer pressure as others did. I think my life has borne that out relatively well.

As Leopold noted, you seem to be looking past exploitation.

Why do you believe that?

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 10th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

A young girl can ruin a person's life based on her word alone; lucifersangel, not exactly someone who thinks highly of pedophilia, made a compelling case for this over in an Ethics forum thread:

i know of a case that i was actually a witness in court for, a family member said that a certain family member abused her sexually, and because the girl caused so much trouble to me and my family i was asked to stand up in court and give a statement now the person who apprently abused her was actually with me the day he was supposed to have abused her, and he was cleared of all charges on my statement, he lost his wife, house job everything because of that lying bitch​

So, let's review; the guy had a rock solid alliby and he -still- loses his wife and his house job. Imagine he was babysitting the girl. The absurdity of the power of a child's word against an adult's in this arena was put into parody in an episode of South Park, where all the kids accused their parents of abusing them and they ended up living in a world without parents, a la "Lord of the Flies", while they're parents were all carted off to jail.

And Scott, if the situation really was so simple as you describe it, the problem isn't "that lying bitch", but the wife and the boss.

I didn't describe it, lucifers angel did; I just summarized. Perhaps the problem is all of the above, plus the society that engulfs them all.

The absurdity of the power of a child's word against an adult's in this arena was put into parody in an episode of South Park, where all the kids accused their parents of abusing them and they ended up living in a world without parents, a la "Lord of the Flies", while their parents were all carted off to jail.

South Park is good for identifying and verifying the existence of certain cultural references.

Agreed...

But the episodes intentionally don't make substantial arguments.

I disagree.

There's the Lord of the Flies/Children of the Corn episode you mentioned. Also Hate Crimes/Chewbacca Defense, Osama Bin Laden/Farty Pants, Iraq War/A Little Bit Country and A Little Bit Rock and Roll, and several other episodes where the point was to take the most grotesque exaggerations of a problem and stretch them to the point of being ridiculous.

Yes, I know they stretch the points to the ridiculous, but I would argue that they do so to make a -point- that society is -already- out of touch with reality in some ways and by pushing it even further, it becomes ridiculous.

As I alluded to Bells in my prior post, I just last week watched a sexual abuse allegation rightly and essentially die. (More appropriately, I suppose, it is currently comatose.) Even with a suspect the parents knew the name of, the investigation stalled and died for lack of merit without even investigating the suspect. Now, I'm one who really doesn't get along with law enforcement; ask around if you doubt that. I saw a child advocacy group conduct itself properly and a police detective operating honestly. In fact, the only people whose conduct I question in this case were the child's mother and maternal grandparents. The situation should never have gone as far as it did.

At last you admit a point; I don't have cable, but your belief that it should have never gone as far as it did is -precisely- the point I'm trying to make; people have pushed these witch hunts -way- too much. It's time that people take a look at the monstrosities they've created:
The Effects of a False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse on an Intact Middle Class Family

Defending False Allegations of Abuse - Cowling Investigations

High Schoolers Accused Of Sending Naked Pictures To Each Other

Judith Levine chronicles several such monstrosities in her book "Harmful to Minors". Here's a good passage near the beginning of her chapter "Therapy- "Children who Molest" and the Tyranny of the Normal" [Judith changed the names of the children to protect their identities]:

In November 1993, the San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony Diamond a grave danger to his sister. Jessica told someone at school that her brother had "touched her front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child, the school called the Child Abuse Hotline. The social worker who did the family's intake interview elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts. At four, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath.
With only Jessica's testimony to go on, the juvenile court charged Tony with "sexual abuse" of "the minor" Jessica, "including, but not limited to touching her vagina and anal areas... placing a pencil in her buttocks" (that is, he poked the flesh of her buttocks with a pencil), and threatening to hurt her if she "disclosed the molest." Jessica's story would change over the weeks and months and none of what transpired between them is clear.
Nevertheless, the interviewer made this confident assessment: "It would appear from a review of the case that Tony is a budding sex offender.". Tony was nine years old.
Tony was to become one case in a new "epidemic", the "sexualization" of children; a new class of patient, "children with sexual behavior problems"; and a new category of sexual criminal perpetrator, "children who molest". Although some youngsters, particularly teen boys, do commit real sexual intrusions, even rape of other kids, "children who molest" are of another order. As young as two, they are diagnosed and treated, and sometimes prosecuted, for "innapropriate" behaviours like fondling, putting things inside genitals or even flashing, mooning, or masturbating "compulsively". From the anecdotes I have gathered since reporting on Tony, it appears that sex play between siblings is considered the gravest, though ironically the commonest species of a grave and not uncommon problem.
Children who molest are accused of coercion, though often the "victim" complies willingly, enjoys, or does not notice the "abuse". And while some such kids are aggressive in other ways, such as fighting, stealing or setting fires, their doctors practice under the assumption that any sexual acting-out is of a wholly different, and worse, order of behaviour. So, with little supportive evidence, a new group of self-styled experts has persuaded the child-protecitve systems that "sex-offense-specific" therapy is necessary for any minor with a "sexual behaviour problem."
Although the events that befell Tony and his family may seem extreme, they are not unique...​

She continues with other such stories. I highly recommend you pick up the book and take a look at our 'brave new world'.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 11th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

A good turn of phrase, but you won't divert me. I'm using what I think is the best argument for my case while you, I believe, are using the best argument for your own.

Okay, let's revisit a point I made earlier in this post: Statistics and averages represent symptoms or manifestations of fundamental differences; they suggest or indicate the practical outcomes resulting from those differences.

A view of yours that I don't agree with...

There comes a point in considering certain concepts and constructions that the removed perspective starts looking like a façade.

I never said I was an extra terrestrial and all of this stuff didn't affect me. There is a difference, however, between something affecting you and losing one's good judgement.

This whole theme orbiting pedophilia seems to mean a lot to you. And people are confused as to why.

I've seen how much damage the status quo regarding society's views concerning sexuality can produce. That is why.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 12th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

By turning it into what someone attracted to minors wants, you dig deep into the fears of many parents that their children will be harmed.

What is your stake in this, then?

I already made that clear in my last post.

I do not accept, as a valid basis, a fear that some random accusation with no foundation will land you or anyone else in prison.

I never asked you to.

In a culture where an accused molester can be acquitted because a prepubescent child didn't scream loudly enough (while an erect penis was jammed into her mouth), or a jury in Florida will acquit a rapist because a woman "asked for it" by wearing clothes the man found sexy, and, furthermore, having just watched a strange sexual abuse investigation founder for lack of evidence, I just don't buy this masculinist paranoia.

I didn't hear about the first 2. I'm not saying that all sexual abuse victims are vindicated, but neither are all people who are innocent of the accusations laid against them.

Honestly, however, the biggest danger that most children have isn't from outside; it's from within; that is, what -they- want.

Bullshit.

Looks like I've gotten even you a little hot under the collar this time. It is certainly an emotional subject, for just about anyone. Anyway, I disagree.

Children must learn differentiation. That is, they must learn to distinguish between one condition and another. It is entirely natural that a developing psyche will wander into what we might consider dangerous territory. It is the duty of adults who ought to know better to protect the children from those dangers.

I agree wholeheartedly that adults should protect children from danger. The problem, ofcourse is that adults don't always know what is good and what is bad for them; I believe the laws reflect this. However, I don't advocate breaking laws I disagree with; I advocate questioning them and the society which has instituted them.

 

[leopold]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184297&postcount=160

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 13th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

A good turn of phrase, but you won't divert me. I'm using what I think is the best argument for my case while you, I believe, are using the best argument for your own. By turning it into what someone attracted to minors wants, you dig deep into the fears of many parents that their children will be harmed. Honestly, however, the biggest danger that most children have isn't from outside; it's from within; that is, what -they- want. The same scenario gets played out with the 'war on drugs'. We blame the dealers, but fail to recognize that the dealers would be broke if they didn't have their market.

I reject that. My desire to smoke marijuana is in no applicable way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity.

Even the first time? I certainly admit that -I- was curious the first time, if somewhat afraid of the 'dangers of marijuana'.

Cocaine addiction is in no way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity.

Never said it was.

And in blaming dealers ... no. One can easily demonize a cocaine dealer for preying on people whose addiction renders them unable to make properly informed decisions, but the same can be said of the really nice family that runs the 7-Eleven up the street who sell me cigarettes. Still, though, my addiction is something I did to myself. And resuming smoking after eighteen months off, or eight, as the last stretch went, was my own decision and I damn well knew better.

I would argue that you didn't and that's why you started again . Hindsight is 20/20. The moment you do things, however, is frequently something else.

In fact, I was talking with a friend about this Friday night, talking about how I was doing just fine, and in control of my nicotine addiction until one day, after having spent eight hours on my hands and knees, bruising my knuckles on a marine water filtration system and crawling around in the back of a minivan and on the molded fiberglass floor of a yacht, I wanted nothing more than a beer and a cigarette. It was a bad decision, yes. But it was a decision made in consideration of more years smoking than the adolescents we're discussing here have been alive.

I believe that you did what you felt was best at the time. I believe that everyone else does the same too, ofcourse. It doesn't mean it -was- the best decision you could have made had you known what would ensue, but like I said, hindsight is 20/20; the present moment frequently isn't.

 

[John99]

However, I don't advocate breaking laws I disagree with; I advocate questioning them and the society which has instituted them.

So go find another society to live in. Simple isnt it?

That is what i was told when i was a young whipper snapper. "john, you are a malcontent" and i said...:scratchin:"you know, your right".

 

[scott3x]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184297&postcount=160

Addressed:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184313&postcount=161

 

[scott3x]

However, I don't advocate breaking laws I disagree with; I advocate questioning them and the society which has instituted them.

So go find another society to live in. Simple isnt it?

Finding another society, sure. Finding one I like better then then one I live in, not so much.

That is what i was told when i was a young whipper snapper. "john, you are a malcontent" and i said...:scratchin:"you know, your right".

Lol .

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 14th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

I can tell you first hand that when -I- was a kid I found many adults quite attractive.

Yeah, and I wanted to see their panties, and reveled in every glimpse of a bra. And I said all sorts of stupid things about what I could do for them and at no point did I have any real clue what I was saying.

I wasn't very talkative, but I definitely wanted to be closer to them.

But most importantly, I was afraid -for her-. Even 22 years ago, it was clear that the witch hunt for 'pedophiles' had begun and I was not going to allow someone I liked to be harmed; so I said I couldn't go to the girls' camp and didn't offer to take her to the boys'. Would I have benefitted from a light sexual relationship at that time? I think so. But I purposely negated the possibility because I was afraid for her well being.

Yes. You were the smart, wise one.

In this particular case, I believe I was, yes.

One of the things about such statements that make people suspicious is that, even accepting that you really are a noble guy and all that, it's exactly what the bad guys say.

Exactly eh? How ever can you tell the good and the bad guys apart then? Perhaps you, too, are a "bad guy" (tm)?

They're honest, innocent, or protective. And it's always the women who are lying bitches or so naîve as to require the man's protection.

When did I say that someone was a 'bitch'? I have a feeling you've confused me with a post from lucifers' angel. I also never said that women were always so naîve as to require a man's protection; in fact, I don't even remember saying anything about the naîvety of women... or of the naîvety of men for that matter.

 

[phlogistician]

there are certainly going to be special cases.
the outcome is decided in our courts.

Exactly. The mental development of both individuals would be taken into account before charges would be filed.

It's like the pro side of this debate want to pre-judge any outcome, and fear it coming to court. I don't understand that.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 15th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Ever hear the phrase, "Three gets you five"?

Nope.

It's exactly what it sounds like. In most states, there is a built-in gap of three years. If the participants are three years apart or less, there's no crime. Beyond that, there's a problem.

Ah. Perhaps I had heard it. My unfamiliarity with it may have to do with the fact that I don't live in the U.S.

Children are allowed, by law, to be sexual. Just not with adults.

Frequently that's only in theory.

Dude ... I went to a Jesuit high school. In theory? Yeah, and in practice.

Sometimes. On the other hand, there are situations as the one Judith Levine chronicled in her book Harmful to Minors and which I quoted in post 187. She chronicles other such stories as well in this book. Here's a few more she chronicled:

While in San Diego reporting on the Diamonds for Mother Jones Magazine, I also met Brian flynn, who at fourteen in 1993 had been charged with lewd and lascivious conduct and oral copulation with a minor, felonies punishable by three- and eight-year terms of incarceration, respectively. His crime, denied by both alleged participants, was asking- or, depending on who told the story and when, allowing- his ten-year-old sister to lick his penis. After much persuasion, Brian pled to the first count, for which he spent more than two years in the state's punitive custody. When he went AWOL from one of his placements, the country sent a SWAT team: half a dozen squad cars with loudspeakers warning neighbors to beware of a "dangerous sex offender" and a helicopter buzzing the scrubby backyards of his father's community. Brian scrambled up a hill; an officer took chase and pulled a gun. The fugitive jumped a fence into the night. His mother finally, reluctantly, turned him in. "I was scared he was going to get himself killed", she told me.2
After the Mother Jones story came out, I began reading more and more stories like Tony's and Brian's in the papers. In 1996, in Mahcnester, New Hampshire, a ten-year-old "touched [two girls] in a sexual manner" (he grabbed at them on the school playground) and was charged with two counts of rape.3 In New Jersey, a neurologically impaired twelve-year-old who groped his eight-year-old stepbrother in the bath was compelled to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law,4 a mark that could stimatize him for life. In 1999, the newspapers briefly bristled with reports of a "child sex ring" in York Haven, Pennsylvania, in which "children as young as 7... taught each other to have sex." An eleven-year-old girl was convicted of rape.5

My research has made me suspicious of these reports, and my doubts were heightened by the phone calls I was receiving from distraught parents and grandparents whose kids were being charged in similar situations...
​

So there you have it; forget about 11 year old girls simply blackmailing; they can 'rape', too, if you believe the courts. That and unarmed 14 year olds need to get SWAT teams after them after they go AWOL from custody. It all reminds me a bit of the movie "Fortress"; the movie doesn't really deal with minors, although there is this one scene, where the male protagonist, in a dream, is a child and reaches out to his wife, who I think is trying to save him from despair...

I remember a South Park episode where they were indoctrinating gay kids into not being gay.. with a few suicides for good measure. South Park prides itself on pointing out the absurd in society by exagerating it, but they frequently base themselves on some very real events.

 

[scott3x]

Exactly. The mental development of both individuals would be taken into account before charges would be filed.

It's like the pro side of this debate want to pre-judge any outcome, and fear it coming to court. I don't understand that.

No need to prejudge anything here as far as I'm concerned. There are already many unjust convictions with which to work with, as I have mentioned in both post 187, my last post and others (I've noted how most people tend to avoid dealing with the relationship between Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau, for instance).

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 16th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Children are allowed, by law, to be sexual. Just not with adults.

Frequently that's only in theory.

Dude ... I went to a Jesuit high school.

So?

In theory? Yeah, and in practice.

How many people went to your high school, Scott?

I went to multiple high schools; I don't know how many students were in any of them.

How many guys lost their virginity with classmates who were also minors?

Again, I wouldn't know. The only thing I know is that in the second last high school I went to, in the grade 12 class there were apparently only one or 2 female holdouts (there was only one grade 12 class, it was a small private school).

How many of them went to jail or even simply faced prosecution for getting laid?

No idea.

Accounting for my circle of friends, well, let's see ... among five thousand students in three high schools where the most part of my friends went to school, exactly zero.

You saying you're sure that, amoung 5 thousands students, none of them got in trouble with the law due to sexual interactions?

The number of alleged actual rapes that went unreported? I lost count.

I've certainly heard of date rape and if crimes involving someone who was actually unwilling have been committed, I definitely think that something should be done. Nevertheless, this doesn't take away from the examples that I have given.

Come on Tiassa, surely you, a parent yourself, know the immense power you have to control the lives of your children.

Be very careful when you appeal to people's parenthood. Especially when you're treading on such thin ice. Advocates of pedophilia, historically, have done a poor job of stating their case.

Are you suggesting that I'm not being careful?

You might find yourself in an age where parents are no longer so wickedly paranoid as to teach their children to sleep with their hands outside the blankets, or tell them stupid things like masturbation will make them go blind, but no, we're not about to offer up our children to a bunch of socially-dysfunctional predators who depend on emotional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification.

Tiassa, I never said anything about offering anything. I was simply stating that parents have a lot of control over the lives of their children/minors, so to simply state that children/minors can be as sexual as they please with each other is, I think you'll agree, not exactly true.

I also note that you seem to think that an adult who would like to be sexual with a minor must be a 'socially-dysfunctional predator who depends on emtional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification'. I strongly disagree with that statement.

 

[James R]

I also note that you seem to think that an adult who would like to be sexual with a minor must be a 'socially-dysfunctional predator who depends on emtional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification'. I strongly disagree with that statement.

So what exactly is your view, scott3x? In your opinion:

Is it ok for an adult to have sex with a minor?
At what age of the child, if any, do you think that sex with an adult would be wrong?
Do you think an 8-year old, say, can give informed consent to sex with a 25 year-old?
Do you think a 4-year old can give informed consent to sex with a 25 year old?
Does informed consent matter anyway? Does the child have to consent for sex to be ok?
At what age do you think children are sexually mature enough for sex with adults?