back when humans were more close to perfection and living to age 800 or more, what was considered a "child" might have been alot older then what we consider a child today.
Originally Posted by: Cheesey
I seriously doubt it. That would have been pretty counterproductive to the primary goal, which would have been increasing the population. The idea that young people shouldn't have sex is a very recent phenomenon. Until a couple of centuries ago, there weren't many virgins past the age of puberty -- which is to say, the first period.
I would also like you to define "molestation" here. The research shows convincingly that it is rarely the sexual acts themselves that cause trauma, but rather the reactions of others surrounding the event that cause trauma. In other words, except in cases of true rape, it usually feels pretty good to get diddled or licked, even if it's by Mommy or Uncle Joe. It's the horror of relatives, the forced physical and psychological examinations, the constant interrogation of social workers and police, the terror of the trial, the media attention, and all the other ordeals surrounding the discovery of sexual abuse that causes the vast majority of the psychological and emotional trauma.
Studies also show that victims of sexual abuse show no overall higher rate of sexual dysfunction ten years later, and there is some evidence they may have slightly better relationships than the general population.
It's pretty sad, but somehow not surprising, that it's the people supposed to be helping the "victims" that end up fucking the poor guys up.