Considering,

Please do not think that we are NOT hearing what you are saying. You have the right to feel any way you want about your encounter.

However, if this is re-visited with YOU as the adult with another child then perhaps that child might come to feel as you have told us that you feel. The adult in these encounters is sometimes called a "sugar daddy". The glue is not always financial, however. It can be a longing to be an adult on the part of the child. However, a child who initiates such an encounter is NOT normal and needs help.

Understand that regardless of your feelings or the child's feelings that this sort of thing is dysfunctional and illegal in every country in the world. The countries all have different ages of responsibility, and those are clearly written in the law books. The laws vary from state to state, also. Before you do ANYTHING read up on the laws in your state.

If that child should enter therapy and be made to realize that adults have a responsibility NOT to enter into sexual relations with children. If such a relationship becomes known testimony in a court where the child cries and demands your absolution in court or to prosecutors this will be looked upon as a control of the adult over the child.

Remember, there are no statutes of limitations on child molestation and there can be civil consequences years after the occurance after the victim becomes an adult as certain Priests have found out. Furthermore, patterns of molestation with multiple abused childen or adults who were molested as children are strong cases against a perpetrator.

Please seek help to discuss the feelings you have further. If WE make you nervous here, then seek professional help.

If you carry this philosophy and end up acting upon it you place yourself in serious legal jepardy.

It is no matter if it is a GAY or STR8 relationship child/adult relationships are destructive for the child and sometimes that destruction manifests itself only after the victim reaches adulthood, when this sort of thing moves into another generation.

Bottom line, especially in this day and age, do not touch ANYBODY that is under 18 in a manner that could even be percieved to be sexual in nature.

Furthermore, if such a threat is made by a child on an adult, the adult needs to report it to authorities.

I can tell you that any child who does this has had problems and that these problems will become known unless you start doing their bidding.

Blackmail is blackmail, regardless of if it is sexual or otherwise. Appeasement doesn't work with a blackmailer any more than it does with a terrorist. If the adult reports an incident of a child sexually blackmailing them and in absence of physical evidence on the child's person the state has very little with which to prosecute the adult.

Sometimes, my friend, children need to be protected from themselves. The authorities are not fools and they have seen it all, regardless.

I hope that everyone is keeping in mind that it is not necessary for someone to be a victim just because they were exposed to victimizing behavior.

Let me explain - with a true story:

There is a teenager who was receiving therapy from someone I know, not a therapist, but an honest to God psychologist.

The boy talked about how he was conflicted about an event in his past. A few years earlier his teen aged, female babysitter and two of her friends had sex with him while he was clearly underage.

He stated that he knew he was supposed to feel bad, violated, etc. about what they had done to him, but he didn't. In fact, he remembered the events that took place quite fondly.

He was struggling to be the victim society expected him to be.

The doctor explained to him that victimizing behavior and victimization are not the same. While it is true that he was exposed to victimizing behaviors, and considering the age differences a sex crime was committed, whether or not he was a victim of the things that took place depends on how he interprets the situation.

In other words whether or not a person is a victim depends on their own interpretation of what took place, in essence did they feel harmed by what happened? It was victimizing behavior regardless, but they were victimized by it only if they feel they were harmed by it.

There have been children who felt much more brutalized by family services then they ever did by the adult who committed a crime against them.

I know one who is 20 now and still not allowed to see her father (he is in prison). She petitions the courts each year since turning 18 to have a family services restraining order removed. It was put in place to protect her from her father who molested not her, but one of her friends.

The prosecutor in the case claimed that when this girl was questioned, to determine if she was a victim or not, that she answered questions with the kind of knowledge only a molested child would know. The damming question came after a lengthy interrogation using anatomically correct dolls, etc. The question was, "If he did touch you someplace where he should not touch you where would he touch you?" Of course she went through "Good touch/Bad touch" in school, so she knew the answer to the question.

While the prosecution's argument was weak, at best, the restraining order was put in place out of the need to protect the child "just in case."

This is part of the reason why sex crime laws are a failure. The pressure to protect the victim, at all costs, is enormous, even when the recipient of the behavior does not feel they are a victim. It is assumed that all of these crimes create victims. But not all do, and not all of the supposed victims believe they were victimized - some, few though they may be - even come away feeling that what happened was a positive thing.

Also do not forget that Victimology (based on emotions, not science) actually stems from the Radical femminist movement and women like Andrea Dworkin who has made such statements as:

"Violence is male, male is the penis, the penis is violence."

and

"Every sexual act of intercourse between a man and a women is an act of rape as it requires the violent thrusting of the man into the woman."

Of course as people learn to accept victimological philosophies they also assume that nailing convicted sex offenders to the wall will reduce the crime rate by more than three percent, they won't. But the assumption allows them to sleep soundly at night feeling like like they have made a significant contribution to the safety of society at large.

I wonder how many men have found their way to sites like this one, drawn by the desire to escape the hatred of men that seems to ooze from the very pores of this society?

And as far as the younger person being the aggressor goes - I live in a society that will try a 12 year old boy as an adult, for murder.

My point being that if a 12 year old boy can be the aggressor in a crime of angry passion then why is it assumed that they are incapable of sexual passion of any kind, unless it is a criminal act directed at someone about their own age or younger? How is it that if their efforts are directed towards someone significantly older than themselves that they have suddenly become incapable of understanding their actions whereas if the recipient of their behavior is someone who is say ten, for example, they are a violent rapist and will be labeled as such, for life, because they are responsible for their actions? If this sexual passion is directed at someone much older than themselves should it really be considered a crime committed against them?

Regarding:

A-1 (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:26 pm Understand that regardless of your feelings or the child's feelings that this sort of thing is dysfunctional and illegal in every country in the world.

* The age of sexual consent in the Philippines is 12.

* The age of consent in Tonga is 12.

* Until recently there was not an age of consent in Japan (now it is said to be 18 or 13, depending on who you ask).

* There is a group of people who practice an unusual form of "conservation of prana." (I will need to edit this later to provide the name of the people and the location - for verification.) The young boys perform oral sex on the older boys until the older boys marry. In this way it is thought that the pranic energy of the older boys is not lost to activities like masturbation, but is passed on to the younger boys instead.

* It was once a common practice among the Polynesian islands for one of a boys grandmothers (maternal/paternal I don't recall) to blow into the foreskin of the boy while they were still quite young in order to enlarge it. Large foreskins were seen as attractive and desirable.

* States in the US consider it a crime for adults to have sex with minors, but they allow kids as young as 12 to get married with parental and sometime judicial permission. (Weird huh? If I marry a 13 year old girl we can do it like rabbits and it is a healthy, loving relationship, but if I do not marry her and we have sex it is rape.)

Blanket statements are rarely true.

Just few thoughts again...

Reading this thread, a post by Plix came into my mind. About maturity:

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthr ... post100338

I feel that this is little bit related to this adult-child victim-victimizer theme.

Sometimes children can be more mature than adults.

I think it was in London where two 10 year old boys killed 4 year old boy. They killed him step by step. Killing process took several hours. Following day one of the killers returned to crime scene and brought a flower with him. They were sentenced for 10 years. Most people didn't give a sh... that they were only 10y old and perhaps did not clearly understood what they were doing. Unfortunately there was nobody there who could tell them that their behaviour is wrong. Just telling them by somebody they respected could have been enough to prevent this disaster. People who passed by mostly ignored obviously wrong situation they saw.

Why did they ignore?

Here, where I live, two underage boys set an abandoned house in fire. They did it intentionally - because They hate homeless men who lived there. There were 4 homeless men living in there, 2 of them managed to escape and 2 of them died. Boys were from normal families as were these London killer boys. Not perfect but, not worse than average.

A real life firsthand experience I heard:

There were around 5-7 boys aged 10-14 on the street that decided to make fun of 2 old people. First they started to throw them with snow balls and say nasty things. And whe they felt that they had the power they just started to rob them. Running by and taking things like bags these elderly people had. When old man finally catched one of the boys, the boy started to shout that he is being beated etc. Old man just released the boy in confusion. He didn't want to become 'child molester'. Who would believe him?

These were street children of course. Not a good environment to grow up.

Has anybody seen a movie 'Lord of the Flies' or read a book?

All psychopaths have been children too.

What is the age of consent? In US it is between mostly 16 and 18 for heteros. For example in Germany, Italy it is 14, Denmark 15.

Spain is even 13. Is it so that Germans do not protect their children?

There is an interesting series - Nanny 911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_911

Many of you have seen it I think. There are plenty of examples how children take power from their parents. Who is victim there? Is it a child who manipulate his/her parents or is it a parent who is unable to control their children. Hard to tell which side need help. Both probably.

E.

Again...

It's disturbing that many are willing to make assumptions that are not correct. In advance of my affair which I initiated that I must have been molested. Wrong. To that point I had the usual very limited sexual experiences that children have.

Did I over-identify with adults? Possibly. By age thirteen I was 6'5" tall and was usually mistaken for a thirty five year old. Childhood was a bore and, clearly, adults did more interesting things. It may also be that growing up in a foreign, far more restrictive country made the "thrill" enhanced.

But let me draw your attention to the more important point which I cannot find has been addressed and that is children using the threat of saying molestation had occurred as a controlling mechanism. This has led some to suicide because they felt their careers, their lives had been threatened by a selfish, manipulative child who wanted their way and had heard about how making threats could be useful. This happens more often than adults might like to think simply because threatened adults do not report their experience.

Again we as a society rush to protect that which correctly should be protected however we need to be aware that in some circumstances things may not be as they seem. No child should experience the devastation of molestation whether physical or psychological. All that I'm suggesting is that we be careful about whom we accuse of doing what. In an era when children have a level of faux sophistication that we as adults don't see, it's necessary to be thoughtful about how we consider what we hear.

To the many of you who have courageously discussed their own molestations, my sympathies are endless. You have every reason to look back and revile what happened. You are to be admired for being open about your experience and one certainly hopes that some of the trauma has been resolved.

Only when I was quite nearly an adult did anything of a negative physical nature happen to me. At age 19 I was beaten with a golf club by my American father so severely that I spent two years in a hospital having my spine, pelvis, both legs...etc. repaired and rehabilitative therapy applied. Indeed I finished my undergraduate work while there. But that does not approach the horror of sexual assault by an adult and the loss of trust for a child.

Again...

Considering (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:41 am It's disturbing that many are willing to make assumptions that are not correct. In advance of my affair which I initiated that I must have been molested. Wrong. To that point I had the usual very limited sexual experiences that children have.

Did I over-identify with adults? Possibly. By age thirteen I was 6'5" tall and was usually mistaken for a thirty five year old. Childhood was a bore and, clearly, adults did more interesting things. It may also be that growing up in a foreign, far more restrictive country made the "thrill" enhanced.

But let me draw your attention to the more important point which I cannot find has been addressed and that is children using the threat of saying molestation had occurred as a controlling mechanism. This has led some to suicide because they felt their careers, their lives had been threatened by a selfish, manipulative child who wanted their way and had heard about how making threats could be useful. This happens more often than adults might like to think simply because threatened adults do not report their experience.

Again we as a society rush to protect that which correctly should be protected however we need to be aware that in some circumstances things may not be as they seem. No child should experience the devastation of molestation whether physical or psychological. All that I'm suggesting is that we be careful about whom we accuse of doing what. In an era when children have a level of faux sophistication that we as adults don't see, it's necessary to be thoughtful about how we consider what we hear.

To the many of you who have courageously discussed their own molestations, my sympathies are endless. You have every reason to look back and revile what happened. You are to be admired for being open about your experience and one certainly hopes that some of the trauma has been resolved.

Only when I was quite nearly an adult did anything of a negative physical nature happen to me. At age 19 I was beaten with a golf club by my American father so severely that I spent two years in a hospital having my spine, pelvis, both legs...etc. repaired and rehabilitative therapy applied. Indeed I finished my undergraduate work while there. But that does not approach the horror of sexual assault by an adult and the loss of trust for a child.

First of all, considering, I want to congratulate you for your survival. In light of that which you have written in this post the fact that you are as sane as you appear to be is nothing short of a miracle.

I do not want to get into all of the dysfunction that your post tells me of but suffice it to say that anybody who has been beaten with golf clubs by their father, ... well, it could have not been the first abuse that was suffered by them at his hand. Remember, not all abuse is physical, and generally a pattern of abuse escalates from psychological into physical.

Nevertheless, I wish you to promise to yourself and to us here, your friends, that never again will you suffer abuse in this manner. You do not deserve this sort of treatment, nobody does and it IS illegal and I hope that your father paid consequences for doing this to you.

I wish to conclude by telling you that it is my sincere belief that much of the bad things that have happened to you in your lifetime so far are NOT your fault.

Remember, it is hard to tell when you are abusing others when you yourself are not fully aware of when and how you were abused. As you say, abuse is in the eye of the abusee. However, when that eye that you must look through has been injured by abuse, it is hard to see clearly from it.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:30 am Remember, it is hard to tell when you are abusing others when you yourself are not fully aware of when and how you were abused. As you say, abuse is in the eye of the abusee. However, when that eye that you must look through has been injured by abuse, it is hard to see clearly from it.

Absolutely true!

But who says what is right and what is not? When that 'eye' is injured and when it is not?

Few thoughts on this...

It depends heavily on our cultural and religious background what we believe is normal and what we believe is not. What acts are considered hostile, what are considered inhumane, what acts are dishonorable, etc.

What i want to say, that there is no 'absolute values' or universal ways to measure what is damaging to a person and what is not.

That is exactly what legislation is trying to set - Set absolute values by age and criminalize certain acts regardless of actual details.

Doing so we could loose the original idea behind it - to protect weak from more powerful.

An experience of my friend:

He married a beatyful and young woman and lived together 2 years, then his wife suddenly wanted divorce. My friend was quite confused and unhappy.

Only after divorce his ex-wife told him why she married him.

My friend was quite wealthy guy and by finnish legislation property of family must be divided after dicorce into 2 equal halves. one half for man and other for woman. She of course had only 3% of the total property originally but after divorce she became quite wealthy. My question here is again, who was abusing who? Was that kind of legislation serving its purpose? by protecting weak?

About cultural backgrounds.

We know that muslims circumcise their prepubescent boys. Does it harm them? Does it inflict pain to them? Does it humiliate them?

Circumcision gives much higher status in society, as after circomcision they are not mere boys anymore. It is honorable for them to get circumcised.

Even more, circumcision is required by god! Who could be against the gods will? God is always right!

are abusees eyes injured already?

Here, where I live it is completely normal to go sauna naked. Usually sexes are separated. Boys and men together and girls and women together. But some times even men and women and children all together go sauna naked. This is an old tradition and nobody percieves it as some kind of abuse or humiliation. At least not for me.

To make things even more complicated, it varies person to person within the people of the same cultural background how we percieve the world around us.

Thats why we try to avoid certain jokes if we are among people we do not know very well. As jokes might be perceived as personal insults.

Please do not misunderstand me, I do not want to justify crimes against minors. Violence against minors, intentional harming, humiliating, abusing them for self pleasure (sexual or nonsexual) by adults is not acceptable.

My message is that the world of relations between humans inside the society are very complicated. Not speaking of relations between people of different cultures. It is not enough to simply follow the rules if you wish to understand the core of the problem.

PS! this is my 100th post

erikboy (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:16 am There are some definitions too:

sexual molestation – a term defining offenses in which an adult engages in non-penetrative activity with a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification; for example, exposing a minor to pornography or to the sexual acts of others

sexual exploitation – a term defining offenses in which an adult victimizes a minor for advancement, sexual gratification, or profit; for example, prostituting a child,[115] and creating or trafficking in child pornography.

sexual assault – a term defining offenses in which an adult touches a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification; for example, rape (including sodomy), and sexual penetration with an object.[112] Most U.S. states include, in their definitions of sexual assault, any penetrative contact of a minor’s body, however slight, if the contact is performed for the purpose of sexual gratification.[113]

sexual grooming - defines the social conduct of a potential child sex offender who seeks to make a minor more accepting of their advances, for example in an online chat room[117]

Protecting our children is good. Only keeping them in sterile environment makes them much more vulnerable when they need to start to make their own decisions. We should teach them to recognize problems early and teach them how to seek for help. I understand, that this is problematic when one of parents is a molester. But somehow we need to make our children stronger.

E.

So what would be the definition of someone (minor, teen, or adult) who engages in one-sided sexual behavior with a younger child (minor or teen) only for the sexual gratification of the child?

What I mean by "one-sided sexual behavior" is that the person is only 'stimulating' the child, and doesn't have the child doing anything to him or her in return (and isn't naked themselves).

Because this is exactly what happened to me...

First off understand that I grew up in a very conservative home. My parents were wonderful, but kept me completely, totally in the dark about anything related to sex (other than "girls don't have a penis" and "its wrong to touch yourself there except for cleaning". Also "its wrong to talk about that sort of thing". That was all I ever knew).

When I was really young, I'm not sure how old, probably 4 or maybe 5, there was a girl up the street that used to occasionally babysit me, named Cindy. I don't know how old she was. To me she seemed like an adult. But looking back she was probably in her mid teens, like 14, 15, or 16 years old. Cindy had watched me several times and I got to know and trust her pretty well. I liked her a lot. Most of the time she would come over to our house, but every now and then my parents would drop me off at her house.

Anyway, one time Cindy was babysitting me at her house, and one of her friends came over. At some point I had used the restroom and was having trouble getting the pants zipper to go back up -- I had gotten my underwear caught in the zipper and couldn't move the thing up or down. So I was looking for her to help... The two girls were in her bedroom. Cindy told me to come in there. So I walked in. She told me to get up on the bed so she could look at the zipper. So I did. Then she said I had to pull down my underwear so she could fix it. I was a very trusting kid, so I just did as I was told. Cindy reached out and started to play with my penis. I can remember thinking that was a little strange. But it did kind of feel good so I did not try to stop her. After a few seconds she asked me if it felt good. I remember nodding 'yes'. "Do you want me to keep doing it?" she asked. I nodded a yes again. I don't know how long she kept it up, but it had to be at least a few minutes. Then Cindy said "you want to try it?" to her friend, and her friend did. But that girl's touch was kind of rough and I didn't like it as much as I did Cindy's. Then Cindy said "move your little muscle to make it go up and down", and I flexed my "down there" muscles which made my penis move a few times. Her friend giggled over that. Then she fixed my zipper and I pulled my pants back up.

That was one of a few experiences which got me a little more interested in sex than I otherwise would have been (I've written about the others in my stories and in other posts).

A year or two after I had entered school, when I was probably 7 years old, there was this boy named Shane in my class who was bigger and more dominant than the rest of us. Kind of a bully. Anyway, one time both Shane and I were in the bathroom at the same time, and we had a sexual encounter. I don't remember if I initiated or if he did, but I am guessing it was him because #1 I was a fairly passive individual, and #2 I was primarily interested in trying to get a girl to let me play with her "privates" (which I was never able to do during childhood, I guess I kept asking the wrong types of girls).

Anyway, so with Shane at first it was just mutual touching. It felt good to have someone touch me there again, so I met up with Shane a few more times. But quickly it became mostly me doing things to Shane, but Shane doing little or nothing to me in return. The very last time we met ended with anal rape (Shane raped me). And that was the end of that, I had nothing else to do with Shane afterwords and hated him for it. I found out years later that Shane's older brother had molested him -- so Shane was another sad case of a victim victimizing someone else.

Sadly, I also became the victim victimizing others. Only my case was a little different. As I was going through puberty and the hormones were raging (at 11 and 12 years old), I always remembered fondly what Cindy had done to me and wanted to bring that feeling to others. So I sought out some of the younger kids in our neighborhood and tried to get them to drop thier pants, telling them it would feel really good and trying to persuade them using the logic that they had never tried playing with themselves before so how would they know what it was like?

Now here is the interesting thing -- I only wanted to please THEM, to make THEM feel good. I didn't care if they did anything to me in return. I just thought I would be giving them the most wonderful gift in the world by making them feel good. If I wanted to make myself feel good, I could just masterbate (besides that, I didn't want anyone to ever see me ejaculate, I was embarassed of it. Also I didn't ever want to force someone to do something to me, like what Shane did to me). So I guess I was kind of a "Submissive" molester or something...

I tried with 4 girls and 5 boys. I had no luck with the girls. But I got 3 of the boys to agree. I never did anything they didn't want/allow me to do (everything I did to them was consensual). For two of the boys, I was clothed the whole time, they never saw me naked. For the third boy, I had multiple encounters with him. At first I was clothed. But soon this boy wanted to make me feel good too, so I let him touch me also. But would always stop him before I ejaculated. Until one time I let him take me all the way. He thought the "white stuff" was weird and thought I was peeing at first. I was so embarassed that I broke off contact with him and we never had another encounter after that.

It was about a year later, I was 14 years old, that I discovered what I had been doing was wrong (from news reports during the 1980's "sex abuse hysteria")... That it would harm children if an older person "played sexually" with them. I was totally devastated at the thought that I might have caused these boys future harm. I stopped all sexual encounters and didn't seek out any other sexual encounters after this. I turned all of my sexual feelings inward. I am pretty sure that this was part of the reason I began to dwell so heavily on thoughts of penectomy, TG, and castration (the other reasons I've wrote about in my stories and in other posts).

Sorry this was such a long post. I hope this adds to the discussion, and maybe helps others...

age 13

encouraged my brother-inlaws , advance'es

Thanks to all of you for your comments!

The courts automatically assume that the adult is the one at fault. And in most cases this is quite true. However, I have known of exceptions.

Once (a very, very long time ago) I met a teenaged boy who wanted me to take him swimming at a local pool. It turned out that he wanted to see me naked as he was curious about what a grown man's body looked like. Subsequently we had a sexual encounter (mutual masturbation) at his request. (Since I was addicted to all forms of sex, his request did not disturb me.) Legally, this was a sex crime, no matter who initiated it. From the standpoint of the boy, there was no molestation since it was all initiated at his request. As to his prior sexual history, I have no knowledge.

Prudence (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:31 pm So what would be the definition of someone (minor, teen, or adult) who engages in one-sided sexual behavior with a younger child (minor or teen) only for the sexual gratification of the child?

What I mean by "one-sided sexual behavior" is that the person is only 'stimulating' the child, and doesn't have the child doing anything to him or her in return (and isn't naked themselves).

I try to reply indirectly.

When a child is born, she or he is like an empty sheet of paper where you can write. Once something is written, it is difficult to erase this. Still, even these empty sheets of paper have very different qualities. Some are soft and requires careful handling, some reject specific ink, some are hard to write on, etc.

It is possible to ruin or breake this nice sheet of paper with rough handling.

If nothing is written on paper then damages, irregularities and ink blots will dominate.

E.