gozmo wrote:When a sexually mature boy, capable of making sexual advances to a woman, instigates and completes an act of satisfying sexual intercourse with an older female suggestions he has been abused are folly.
Boys and girls are "sexually mature" to the point of being able to "instigate and complete an act of sexual intercourse" from age, what? 12? 13? Its not something we like to think of much, but its true. Does that mean that if a 12 or 13 year old girl or boy ends up having intercourse with someone a decade or more older, its "folly" to think abuse was involved? What nonsense. (Call me frank-and-crude too).
Abuse is not just a question of physically forcing sex. Sexual abuse involves coercion and intimidation, preying on young ones' budding sense of their sexual self and perhaps above all, making them feel like an accomplice in what they're doing (its what contributes to the lasting sense of shame).
There are countries where 12-year olds marry and as Andrew pointed out, some 12 year olds are physically able to have children. Does that mean that any 25 or 30 year old guy having sex with one is, you know, natural, (in Andrew's previous words) "red-blooded" instinct? Again, piffle. To suggest that the mere, physical ability to instigate and complete an act of sex means that the kid in question was in control of the situation and able to express proper consensuality is folly. Anyone who read up a little bit on the sexual abuse of minors should know that. (And as to whether it was "satisfactory", you dont know skiddle-dee - and the point is, he doesnt know, really, either - thats why we consider him to be below the age of consent).