" I'd lock up anyone who went after a 5-year-old."

Well, "anyone" may be too broad. What about another 5-year-old? Preschool and early elementary school children often play sexually with each other ("house", "post office", etc.). I was that age before we or most other families we knew had TVs, and of course TV in the 50's was pretty different from now. I can only surmise that there is probably more of it now, and perhaps much more realistic and competent, than there was back then.

Why is this worth mentioning? Well, the article draws a timeline starting at age 12 as if puberty was the dawn of sexuality. Clearly, once you go that low in age, it is arbitrary not to include the pre-pubescent years.

During the elementary school years, there is only a small portion of adult-level cognition available (increasing with age). For example, there is no question of legal consent. However, there are several relevant capacities or proclivities: imitation of adults, desire to be "adult", physical sensations, curiosity about the "hidden" portions of the clothed body, curiosity about observations of pets or farm animals having sex. And, there are the earliest beginnings of the adult libido; for example, it is often reported that awareness of an homosexual identification can begin well before age ten. Finally, pre-pubescent behavior and habits can set the stage for how one views sexuality once puberty begins, since often the same circle of friends matures together: pre-pubescent sex-play within the group can transition into teenage sexual activity (and drama).

I don't have any answers to how to incorporate these realities into the criminal code, but I do think that if the issues mentioned in the target article are relevant, then so are issues concerning prepubescent sexuality.

gshenaut:

" I'd lock up anyone who went after a 5-year-old." Well, "anyone" may be too broad. What about another 5-year-old? Preschool and early elementary school children often play sexually with each other ("house", "post office", etc.). .

I am sorry to have to brake it to you gshenaut, but a 5 year old is incapable of having sex. You can think about it, rationalize it, whatever you want with that information, but the fact remain, they're not capable of having sex. I have met 5 year olds their body is not ready to have it or want it, know of it. Nature is not as twisted as some human being out there.

Playing house or Dr. ( I have never heard of playing "post office") is kids playing house. They could not even begin to explain the true meaning of the word "sex" or what it implies.

Children do not play sexually with other. They play with each other. Please never repeat this again. Please.

It's one thing for kids to play with each other like that. It's another for adults to join in.

And regarding coolrepublica's denouncement, maybe sensual would be a better term? Taken literally, anyone at any age can be sensual.

I personally engaged in sex play with other children when I was five (this was in the early 1950's). I was never abused or anything, never had had a sexual experience of any kind with anyone out of my age group, but I had heard a few facts about sex and so had my playmates so we played around with each other. As sex, it was very incompetent; we didn't know what you were supposed to do---we were innocents. But it was fun, and it was definitely sexual play. Over the subsequent decades, I've spoken to enough other people who had similar experiences to know that you are incorrect.

I do not require vivid details, but sexual is an adult concept. Can you honestly say at the time you were thinking sexuality or is this something you identified later on in life? It is hard to look at our younger experiences with out framing the experiences with the eyes of an adult.

I am disturbed that sexual harassment training is beginning younger and younger. To adults breasts are sexual entities. To a child they are something mommies use to feed their babies.

no question about it. It definitely wasn't anything like adult sex, how could it have been? But within the limitations of five year-old consciousness, it was sexual. Maybe one way to think about it is as "immature sexuality".

I was a lot more boring that you were when I was 5. I do not even think I knew what sex was when I was 5.

One of my favourite childhood pictures is of me at about age 1 snuggled on the couch with my older brother, about age 4, looking at a Playboy magazine. His eyes are wide and his mouth is open (in awe, I presume), my eyes are wide and I am smiling.

By age 5, I was fondling myself for pleasure while thinking about Paul McCartney (I remember trying to be discreet because my parent(s) would check on us periodically after we went to bed), at age 7, as noted elsewhere, I was pulling down my pants and displaying my goods for the local boys to gawk at and touch (for the price of 25c per person), by age 10, I was experimenting with penetration with my girlfriends after school (digital and/or household objects), at age 11, my older brother asked me if I would have sex with him (I declined because I simply didn't like him very much at that time) and by age 14, I would likely have had sex if the opportunity had presented itself. As it happened, I couldn't get anyone seriously interested until I was 16 (except my younger brother - we started on some foreplay, but we were at my grandparent's house, so we didn't think it prudent to proceed further), but none of the "men" (18-22 year olds) I was interested in would have it because I was underaged - although French kissing and heavy petting was engaged in. On the cusp of turning 17, I was raped by a stranger, then all hell broke loose - it was nothing but sex, sex, sex after that.

I was probably a little ahead of other kids my age because I come from a family with high libidos on both my mother's and father's side. But I don't think I was significantly advanced for my age. I knew of quite a few girls who had already had sex with their brothers by age 13. "Are you still a virgin if you do it with your brother?" was a commonly pondered question amongst my peers from grades 7-10. Having been both in a catholic girl's school and living in fairly remote rural areas, sex between siblings was usually a person's first experience.

From reading Playboy magazine, which my dad kept discreetly under his bed, though not precisely hidden, I was well cognizant of the mechanics of sex by age 7 because I looked at and read every issue whenever I could get my hands on them when dad was off at work. (We didn't have a mom for much of the time between ages 4-8 because my dad was married, divorced and remarried 3 times during that period.)

As a matter of fact, I still remember my favourite centerfold. She was Miss July (my birth month - maybe 1970 or 71) - a gorgeous, big breasted, topless blonde wearing a pair of unzipped hiphugger jeans that had a red, white and blue flag pattern. My fondest desire, once I saw her, was to be just like her! ;)

I am quite sure that sexual play starts in early childhood for most people - at least it did when I was a child. Perhaps nowadays, with helicopter parents, children don't have the opportunity or are discouraged from taking the opportunity, but that probably doesn't quell the natural curiosity and desire to explore even if it does prevent any actual contact.

But, while I think sex between children of commensurate cognitve levels is perfectly good and healthy, I don't think that sex between people of vastly different cognitive and emotional levels is good or healthy. Too much opportunity for predation (since we humans are naturally predatory and opportunistic) by people who have an advantage over people who are much less mature.

Do you think that you would have engaged in these activities? I never saw a play boy magazine until at least high school or college. The ideas you came up with would never have crossed my mind at those ages. By educated I am referring to the play boy magazine.

Something similar, I'm sure. Reading Playboy just gave me the specifics of the mechanics, not the motivation or desire.

But, you have to understand that my mother became pregnant at age 16 with my father, who was also 16. She miscarried, and everyone assumed they would have "learned their lesson", but she was pregnant again at 17 and had to drop out of high school to have my older brother. My dad graduated, married her, joined the marines. They had another 2 miscarriages, then me, then my younger brother, then got divorced.

My mother went on to have 5 more husbands, 3 more kids, 4-5 more miscarriages and 4-6 abortions (yeah, I know, not real bright). My dad had 2 more wives, now working on his 4th, although no more kids - he got a vascectomy instead.

So yes, I'm sure I would have engaged in those activities, or something similar, except without the necessary knowledge to comprehend what it was that I was doing. (e.g. I knew at a very early age that sex between children and adults was not appropriate.)

I credit Playboy (despite the joke, the articles were oftentimes very good and informative) and my grandfather's excellent and comprehensive (some might say over zealous - he was bound and determined that I not become a teen pregnancy statistic!) sex education for keeping me healthy and informed about everything from contraception to STD's to the social and emotional impact of sex. My parents, who I lived with until I was 15, never once mentioned anything at all about sex to me other than the standard menstruation lecture.

I shudder to think of what would have become of me if I had to rely on my parents and peers for that information. (When I was raped, I knew I had been raped. And other than the initial shock, fear and uncertainty in speaking of it, I was never under the impression that it was in any way my fault or that I should be held responsible for it. I knew that there were clear boundaries for establishing consent and that he had no right to do what he did even if his excuse was that I was somehow "asking for it". From my education I knew that no matter what I looked like, how I dressed, or how I acted, it was not correct or proper for it to have resulted in rape. Not that I dressed provocatively, I didn't, but I did have a reputation as an incorrigible flirt who would allow boys/men to kiss and touch her. But only with my consent, never without.)

I will add also that my grandfather was bound and determined that I not become a teenage drug and alcohol statistic either. His drug and alcohol lectures were long and arduous, but quite informative. I am sure that is the reason why, unlike all of my friends, I never got into drugs other than experimenting with a few substances, and aside from a 6 month drinking binge that resulted in an ulcer when I was 18, I never took to alcohol either, even though my dad was a classic alcoholic who hid it under the guise of "social drinking".

happyatheist:

By age 5, I was fondling myself for pleasure while thinking about Paul McCartney (I remember trying to be discreet because my parent(s) would check on us periodically after we went to bed), at age 7, as noted elsewhere, I was pulling down my pants and displaying my goods for the local boys to gawk at and touch (for the price of 25c per person), by age 10, I was experimenting with penetration with my girlfriends after school (digital and/or household objects), at age 11, my older brother asked me if I would have sex with him (I declined because I simply didn't like him very much at that time)

But, while I think sex between children of commensurate cognitve levels is perfectly good and healthy, I don't think that sex between people of vastly different cognitive and emotional levels is good or healthy. Too much opportunity for predation (since we humans are naturally predatory and opportunistic) by people who have an advantage over people who are much less mature.

What can be said after reading something like this. I am sure hundreds of people read your post but after reading it most people was so horrified they quickly left the site.

You think that sex between children is OK. I would ask if you think 3, 4, 5 year olds attempting to have intercourse with each other is OK? But I know the answer so please don't bother responding to it.

If it was not "morally objectionable", as SusanM as referred to me for my question about the author, I would ask how many years you have been in therapy? But I am not going to ask that question so please don't bother answering it. I am sure that you are a very, very, happyperson. But If I heard that story from someone I knew and loved, I would have begged them to seek help. But I would hate to be "morally objectionable" and probably would not say anything.

Good luck in life!! Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt hundreds of people read it.

But, yes, I think sex between children of similar cognitive levels is OK. Considering that the nature of sex that happens between small children largely consists of a lot of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", and does not carry much further than a simple exploration of each other's body parts - along with a lot of giggling and bestowing pet names upon said body parts - it isn't anything that is either harmful or "unnatural". Even I wasn't interested in penetration until age 11, and then only experimentally with people of the same sex, and I may have been comparatively slightly advanced. What would cause you to think that 3,4,and 5 year olds are interested in penetration?

I, personally, have never heard of, been involved in or witnessed (and I babysat for a good many years children in that age range) any 3,4,5 year olds attempting to have intercourse with each other. I'm not sure that at that age, kids are either knowledgeable of the mechanics of sexual intercourse or interested in putting it to the test. Mostly the sexual action revolves around looking, quick embarrassed touching and maybe some attempt at light hearted kissing.

What I believe I said was that 5 year olds are capable of consenting to 5 year old negotiated sexual contracts with other 5 year olds. That sets the limits of the nature of the sexual contract and contact at the specific levels that 5 year olds are likely to initiate and engage in, which pretty much takes intercouse out of the targeted sexual conduct wouldn't you think?

Since you asked, I have never been in therapy due to anything sexual, although my grandfather did drag me off to a psychologist because I was a bit of a head strong and willful teenager - introverted and academic, not social. But that was more because I didn't feel any need to follow the rules applied to other people my age because, as I mentioned elsewhere, I spent a whole lifetime being praised as mature and responsible beyond my years and, as such, I expected to be given the priveledges that my maturity warranted. That, and the fact that I left my parent's home at age 15 and my grandfather wanted to make sure I wasn't suffering any negative effects from that.

With a family history of depression (my great aunt even committed suicide at age 22), which I suffer from and have manifested since about age 8 (introversion, aversion to socializing and a marked lack of understanding of human motivations), I do not think that happiness will ever be something I will obtain in this life. My nic simply indicates that I am happy with atheism because I find it useful and helpful in negotiating life's twists and turns.

I do not, however, believe that people should withhold information or ideas from others if they truly believe that they can and should help them. Information can be useful - enlightening and encouraging - whether or not the other actually appears to take it, understand it and use it.

I would be interested in why you would think that I need help or luck for that matter. Quite frankly, I think I am one of the luckiest people I know. Sheer dumb-ass, stupid luck. I have that in spades! Have I exhibited qualities that would cause you to think that I am in need of therapy?

Unfortunately, due to my luck and circumstances, I have everything I need and many of the things I want - good home, good job, good friends, good life. Much more than most other people have. The only problem with that is that those things don't make a person happy. As a depressive, I am really not sure what does make a person happy. Some say that taking anti-depressants would change my outlook, but I have seen my brother and grandfather on them and I simply don't think they are the people they are supposed to be when they were taking them, so I have never wanted to go that route - nor drugs, nor alcohol, nor eating, nor physical abuse, nor wanton orgiastic sex. The problem with depression is that nothing really changes it. You can cover it up for a spell, but it doesn't go away. It never goes away.

But thank you for your well wishes and the same back to you.

By the way, are you male or female, or does it matter?

You poor child! Unfortunately I have seen many like you. If you think I am making personal judgments as to what is unfortunate or not, I am. How do you know that a song is sung out of tune? It sounds bad. I hope that by now you have developed a less discordant taste in life's music.

If you wonder why old people are so cautious, like your grandfather, it's because you will find that even worse than living with chronic physical pain, is the agony of living with chronic regret.

Luckily, the only regrets that stay with you are the acts perpetrated against others. For example I'd want to die (literally) if I ever hurt or killed a child, even by accident. That I've seen someone living with too. For those, you need the individual's forgiveness, if they can be reached.

For yourself, you can always start over again. Don't worry that child lives on within, in your present self, what you do for youself now is done to that five year old as well. "The past has never left us, it is in us!"

One good riff wipes out the regret of a thousand bad notes. So don't stop the music. I love you, sight unseen. That's me regretting that I couldn't have helped the thousand or so children who passed through my hands, more.