http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/educatio...ion/30MISS.html

>>
In the article, an 18-page essay with 38 footnotes published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Dr. Mirkin argued that the notion of the innocent child was a social construct, that all intergenerational sex should not be lumped into one ugly pile and that the panic over pedophilia fit a pattern of public response to female sexuality and homosexuality, both of which were once considered deviant.
....
<<

"In 1900, everybody assumed that masturbation had grave physical consequences; that didn't make it true." "These things that you're sure of," he added, "you really ought to check out and test."

He sounds like a decent, provocative professor to take a class from.

Now if only we could get certain favorite athletes who state they are just SO sure of their heterosexuality to "really check out and test" that theory!

Pardon me while I vomit.

This guy is entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to ours. And mine is that sex between children and adults is wrong. Period.

Very well said Tree... what needs to happen is people need to learn that there is a difference between a man that loves another MAN and a pedofiliac.... most gay men do NOT want to have sex with a boy, and would never consider it... and many pedofiliacs that have same sex sex would never thank of having homosexual sex with another adult.... Homosexuality does not equal pedofilia!!!!

I haven't read this Mirkin fella's essay, but it seems to me some of you are slamming him for what he hasn't said. Saying there are different types of "intergenerational" sex is certainly true, or Ian McKellen would be behind bars... and an adult having consensual sex with a 17-year-old is distinct from one abusing an 8-year-old. The soundbite culture strikes again...

Fine, let's define it as an adult having sex with anyone under the age of consent. That works for me. Once someone is of the age of consent then they can boink who they want. Will that definition work for you?

for those of you who perhaps haven't read the article, Dr. Milkin is quoted as follows:

"The article is meant to be subversive; the article is meant to make people think. Because they have tried to stifle discussion, there has been a discussion, which is one of the healthy things about the United States."

as well as:
"Incest and rape, he said, are always wrong. He agreed that priests and teachers who touched children sexually were abusing their authority."

in coclusion with:
"He imagines...most adolescent males have fantasies similar to his, as a 12-year-old delivery boy, of being seduced...and he wondered whether it would have been so bad had it come true."

I think he brings up some valid points. The difficulties lie in the fact that while it may be normal for young boys to fantasize about getting it on with an older, more sexually experienced adult, it is abnormal for an adult to follow thru.

there is a movie called, "For the Love of a Soldier" that addresses this theme quite well, as well as "L.I.E.".

[quote]Originally posted by smrobbins65:
[QBthere is a movie called, "For the Love of a Soldier" that addresses this theme quite well, as well as "L.I.E.".[/QB]

---

The movie is called For A Lost Soldier. Based on the experiences of a boy during the Second World War in the Netherlands. The boy would grow up to be a choreographer and the film is based on his autobiography, I believe.

In the film, the boy (who is maybe 10 or 12), falls in love with a young Canadian soldier (around 19-21). There is a sexual aspect to their relationship. The soldier leaves and the boy is distraught. As an adult he reminisces about this incident.

I quite enjoyed the film and, while I believe there may be rare instances of these relationships taking place without traumatic effects (although one wonders if the man is not having a somewhat golden rememberance of things past), I certainly can't condone such activities.

This boy was not scarred for life, but the vast majority are.