That last article left me wondering. It would appear that I am not alone in
that but following some hours with my faithful google I have decided that the whole sexual predator/child molestation thing is far more beat up that reality. The first fundamental problem with it is that no one actually has a definition of what it is. This is really complicated by the fact that for some reason there is no consistent definition of 'a child'. Generally it is considered to be those under the age of consent. But what really is the age of consent? It would appear than for some 2/3 of the worlds population this is 14 (China) but there are a number of countries that make the age younger and older.

The age of consent in and of itself makes a farce of the whole argument. The fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is when are children no longer children? Now to sound like my grand father I have to say that with each generation it appear that our children become more sexually active earlier and that we consider them to be children for far longer than in the past. Whilst historically people were not considered to have reached their 'majority' until they were 21 and in legal circles trusts etc often prevented beneficiaries any meaningful access until they were 25 or 30 the reality is that by the time a boy was 14 there was an expectation that he would be out working and 'earning his crust'. I clearly remember my step father having a go at me because I was still at school at 17 and that was unhear of in his world. So the view is not really that old. But back to the point of all this when do our children cease to be a child? It would appear that Australian Governments just can not make up their minds on the issue.

Federally we find that for receipt of Youth Allowance/Austudy that the age is either 21 or 25. Depending on if your are a student. However at 18 this same government is happy to accept them into the armed forces. They also cease Child Support at 18. This would lead you to think that obviously somewhere between 18 and 25 they cease to be children. We as a community tend to lean towards 18 sinply because that is the age they are required to enrole to vote and can legally enter licensed premises and buy cigarettes. But is this a correct assumption?

I personally think that it is not. Basically laws are framed to protect community, or at least they should be, and in this case I think the justification is that most 18 year olds have the ability to make adult decisions about drugs and politics. Now as anyone involved with teenagers will tell you. They have been drinking smoking and a number of other things for some years but now they can do it legally.

Things become most confusing when we allow the 'child protection' industry into the fold. There are numerous reports of teenagers leaving home and being sheltered in government sponsored hostels long before they are 18. These reports are often atteched to complaints by parents that they have no control over their children because if they don't like it at home these hostels will not only accomodate them, but hide their whereabouts from the parents.

I am no closer to my answer of when does a child cease to be a child all I have done is pull together a lot of facts that it would appear muddy the waters further.

What I do know is that we as citizens of this planet need to stop this meaningless and destructive child protection thing we have going and actually work out what it is that we are trying to acheive. As a starting point I would suggest that 'child pornography' should really be aligned with the clinical definition of paedophilia as pre pubescent children. If the community thinks that there needs to be some other offence relating to pubescent or older 'children' then let it be so. But I have something of a problem considering the two things as the same as is currently the case