Prepubescent Children and Informed Consent to Sexual Acts

Prairie gal wrote:If you have ever worked in the educational, pastoral, judicial, medical or social sciences field (been a police officer, therapist, counsellor, teacher, doctor or social worker), that is dealing with the casualties of adult sex with children, you would not even be thinking of finding that one exception or two who may not have been harmed.

You don't need science. Just talk to people. Ask a therapist, "Of the 1,000 messed up people you tried to help who had sex with adults, what percent were not harmed by it?"

Sex play with children around your age doesn't count.

Prairie gal, I see your point.

I believe those that go to therapists were harmed by the fact that precisely the things that were done to them were without consent, without their understanding, without providing them with information or power to decide. And even more sad, they were harmed by the fact that there were no adults around who would listen to them, notice their behaviors, their needs, answer their questions, or soothe or fulfill their nourishing and any other needs. Certainly people who were not harmed by it are not addressing the subject with their therapist, possibly not even going to one. And maybe we haven't heard their stories.

I myself wonder if my opinion about children being able to give consent is biased by my own abuse. After all, I didn't think that the abuse had had any impact on my life, until I saw some of my behaviors stated in the behavior of survivors of sexual abuse.

However, I do want to be open to listen to other arguments. I value very much my freedom. And I wouldn't want to take away a children's right. I do see that in the name of safety many rights are taken away from people, and from children. I understand that children's safety is at stake, and for that all measures should be taken to guarantee it. However, I do believe that we need to have a greater understanding together. Specially with those who want to talk about it.

Pro-contact pedophiles are not the ones that worry me. What worries me are child abusers who in deed would not only, not care for the child's consent, but would be willing to harm them and do horrific things to them. They are the ones who are causing traumas in children's lives. What worries me also are people around these children who are poorly emotionally equipped to nourish them, to give them information, and spaces to play and develop and grow, and who don't hear, don't notice the children's real needs.

Sea

Prairie gal wrote:You don't need science. Just talk to people. Ask a therapist, "Of the 1,000 messed up people you tried to help who had sex with adults, what percent were not harmed by it?"

That is the exact reason we need science. If you ask a therapist whose job it is to talk to abused children, he's going to tell you that he saw a lot of abused children.

The reason they don't ban pro-contacts is the same reason they don't ban people who don't have paraphilias (like you). This is a space where we can talk and discuss ideas and possibilities with the chance of learning and growing as people. It's a support forum, not a place to belittle people who you don't agree with.

Everyone that comes here is here for a reason, and despite what you might think, it is NOT to promote their agendas, be they pro- or anti-contact. Personally, I came here because I seemed like I was the only person who felt like it was "okay" to be a pedophile and not hate myself for it, but after a little bit of browsing, I found these forums and people who seemed to agree that, as long as you're law-abiding, then being proud of who you are isn't an odd thing. I found a community I can be proud to be a part of.

That said, I'm more than welcome to hear your opinions and evidence on the pro-contact and anti-contact debates. However, when you start calling for people to be banned for expressing their opinions, no matter how strongly you disagree with them, you're disrupting the community and purpose of a support forum in general. I won't ask that people that do that be banned outright, but I will ask that you check your emotions a bit or leave if you can't handle the topic properly. Of course, I can't make you do either of those things. I would just hope that you see that you're causing a great deal of harm and rectify that by showing a bit more maturity.

That goes for anyone that asks that others be banned from a support forum for expressing their beliefs.

PG, thank you for your steadfast faith and support.

One thing that is being missed is that your comment regarding "ask 1000 care workers" actually IS science. As the topic of this thread is the issue of prepubescents and consent, I will not elaborate further.

I have not yet read any of these papers. But even on the onset, something is already "off" with me. That is this: Alderson is concerned with the ethics of a child's consent to medical treatment and the use of children in medical research. At the surface (which is all I currently have), his concerns are very valid. The lack of power that children have in our society is troubling to me; such as the power to voice custodianship when in dispute, power in medical decisions, power over the direction of their lives in adoption issues, and many others. In each of these instances, the children have no voice and if the child's voice is even heard or acted upon, this generally turns out to be by the wisdom and compassion of judges who simply did not have to listen to them. But the most glaring thing that seems "off" is this: A child providing informed consent to medical procedures where they are under the watchful eyes of doctors, counselors, clergy and guardians is a far, far different scenario than a child providing "informed consent" behind closed doors, alone, with a man who wants to have sex with them.

The glaring differences there being missed, to me, is a headscratcher. So I will read the papers, if only for my own information.

I am for "youth rights". I applaud South Africa for implementing a section of their constitution dedicated specifically to the rights of children. As an adoptee, I am afforded no right to "undo" my adoption should I choose; no right to have ever said, "No, I don't want to live with these people who want to adopt me"; no right to demand contact (or even knowledge of) a sister I lost in the process; and when complaining to attorneys over these injustices, I am laughed at and told that I did not matter because "you were not a party to the case" or that "you have no right to know anything of your sister as you had no custodianship and are not a biological parent to the subject".

But even there, "youth rights" need to be taken with caution. In (I think, Denmark) there is a small child, I think 4, who was diagnosed with "gender identity dysmorphia". the doctors and parents then set out with scalpel and consent papers to change that child's gender through gender reassignment surgery. Compare that to a like incident in England; where the child (at the child's insistence) is treated, dressed, renamed, etc. as if the child was a female. Upon reaching puberty, the child will be given medications to slow or halt the process of puberty; and when the child is considered old enough (around 13-15), the option of gender reassignment surgery will be presented under the assumption that by then, the child will have developed cognitively and emotionally enough to make such a decision. The Denmark case, I feel, is unethical; and the English case, I feel, is as close as we can get to honoring the child's wishes while protecting the child from himself -- and others, such as overly-zealous LGBT crusaders.

Anyway, sorry for my disjointed rant.

But with all of that aside, I guess my complaints pale in comparison to the thousands of children across our disparate societies who are mad as hell that they can't have an adult lover.

I appreciate your (Seangel's and Atma's) kind responses. I may be unwelcome on here because I do not have a paraphilia. My motivation is not to annoy or make life harder for pedophiles or those with other differences I have no experience with. I'm trying to learn what you all go through, so probably I should just sit back and observe rather than post.

I've learned from Graveyard and Skeleton Countess a fair bit about what it is like to be attracted to dead bodies, skeletons and the like. I had zero understanding of that before coming on this forum. I'm also learning a fair bit about pedophiles, though I still don't get the pro-contact people. I read in an article the other day that they are activists who are trying to groom society to accept pedophilia as a legitimate form of sexual expression.

What I know is that in my heart, I accept and respect and even trust non-offending pedophiles and could be friends with them and see them as equals. I can't say I feel that way about pro-contact pedophiles. They strike me as being dangerous and having a hidden agenda (and I'm not even a parent). I'm just not ready to interact with them.

Regarding RecoveringSO's questions:

RecoveringSO wrote:1 - What "informed consent" is and what it is not.

A first attempt to put into words what consent means to me, is: It is the capacity of an individual (or multiple) to agree to engage into a certain activity (sexual in this case). Informed, would be the knowledge that an individual (or multiple) has about certain topic to make a decision.

Informed consent of a child to engage in a sexual act with an adult would include definitely what YYR has stated in the RMSC, but, in my opinion, also topics about relationships and emotions. That yeah some people engage in relationships that are only sexual and there's nothing wrong with it, but also that some people engage in loving relationships that include sex, and what they are about.

Informed consent would include for them to know that they can talk about their expectations before engaging in a sexual or emotional relationships. It would mean for them to know the person they are considering engaging with might only be attracted exclusively to children (this would need to be defined or stated among who ever discuss it). It would mean that the child knows that the person may not want them or desire them when they grow up. And understand how that might feel. And these are just few of the topics a child would need to understand, in my opinion to give consent.

I believe that:

- Consent is NOT when a child shows their intimate parts to an adult.
- Consent is NOT when a child is naked or in what is considered a "provocative" clothing.
- Consent is NOT when a child asks sexual questions.
- Consent is NOT a child touching themselves in a sexual matter, even if in front of an adult.
- Consent is NOT a child using a person's body part to masturbate or to rub their genitals.
- Consent is NOT a child asking for a sexual act.
- Consent is NOT a child in silent when an adult proposes a sexual actual.
- Consent is NOT a child numb or expressionless to a sexual touch of an adult.
- Consent is NOT a child smiling when someone ask for a sexual act.
- Consent is NOT a child not knowing what they are getting into.
- Consent is NOT a child thinking he/she is playing with an adult.
- Consent is NOT when a child rides, or touches, a person or a body part of a person, that they might find arousing.
- Consent is NOT a child being sleep and showing their parts, or cuddling with an adult.
- Consent is NOT a child saying they want to engage into something sexual to make an adult happy.

There are for sure many more examples, but these are ones that come to mind to what consent is NOT.

RecoveringSO wrote:2 - Whether or not prepubescent children have the capability to give "informed consent" to sexual activity based on the definition of #1.

I really don't know if this is possible. I've seen some children say no, when provided enough information. I've heard about some children not objecting, but not necessarily giving consent. And I've read about prepubescent children giving uninformed consent.

I think I believe that a great number of children who are provided with enough information, would actually say "no" to engaging to a sexual encounter with an adult. So they would give an informed "no".

However, I would like to know more about those who would say yes. To know wether they will remember their answer a while after they said it. To know if they understood the consequences of their consent. To know if our (adult) understanding is any different when we consent to something we haven't fully experienced.

RecoveringSO wrote:3 - Complexities of human perception: if a child is, by appearances, giving "consent", is the child truly giving consent; or is the perception of what is actually occurring faulty on the part of the one who perceives that the child is giving consent (based on #1 and #2).

I believe that if a "child" (what definition we have of a child?) answers the RMSC questions, and other questions in which he/she acknowledges and understands that they could be hurt by feelings, and that people they engage with may reject them in the future, and if they have stated their expectations of a relationship freely and come with an agreement with the interested adult, without coercion, I do think that they would be giving consent.

I wonder how is the consent given by an adult differently? When we consent, how do we make the decision to consent? Do we always know what we get into when we consent?

RecoveringSO wrote:4 - Is the sexual acting out by children truly acting out sexually, or is there more occurring; and is the sexually acting out on equal level with the sexual acting out of those who have passed through, or is passing through, puberty;

Humm... I believe there's a normal exploration and curiosity in children. However, I've seen that many "sexual acts" such as excessive masturbation, and other sexual acts are signs of abuse. So, I don't know. I think I would want to observe more children who grow in healthy and loving, and open families, how is their sexual exploration.

RecoveringSO wrote:5 - That the scorn of convicted child molesters on the part of the pro-consent, law-abiding pedophile is out of whack; because, in many (or most) cases, the only difference between the convicted child molester and the pro-consent pedophile is that the child molester acted on the very beliefs that the pro-consent pedophile holds and advocates (based on 1 through 3).

I don't see a question here, but I would like to comment. I think it would be important to talk about what consent is not, in a similar way that women have stated what consent is not. (It's not being drunk and not saying no, it's not silence, etc.). I think we need to address this topic with teens and children, and tell them they can say no. And observing if they can actually say yes in a responsible matter, fully understanding what they get into.

I think we as adults, and as a society, need to educate ourselves in what respecting other boundaries mean. How to ask for consent. How manipulation works. How we can be manipulative, coercive, to get what we want. I do think we need to understand when molestation, abuse and rape occurs, and reject it at any age.

This is far from an easy topic, but I think that understanding that a child could give informed consent doesn't mean that all would give it, or that child abusers would get away with rape. I think that understanding that a child could actually give informed consent brings us closer to respecting children more, and giving them more information. To designing better tools for them to use when approached sexually, to design appropriate spaces to reduce situational criminals; to provide adults, and society in general, with better tools to keep children's safety a priority; to know what needs to be payed attention to and how really listen to what they are saying, and to handle situations that which some are so terrified to handle that prefer to look away.

Sea

Prairie gal wrote:What I know is that in my heart, I accept and respect and even trust non-offending pedophiles and could be friends with them and see them as equals. I can't say I feel that way about pro-contact pedophiles. They strike me as being dangerous and having a hidden agenda (and I'm not even a parent). I'm just not ready to interact with them.

Except that I am a non-offending pedophile (and always will be). Most every pro-contact on here has said that they have never offended, and won't touch a child until the laws have changed.

Prairie gal wrote:I'm trying to learn what you all go through, so probably I should just sit back and observe rather than post.

This is very healthy. I have learnt a great deal myself. I have changed many of my erroneous perceptions by sitting back and observing; and also by posting and asking. I think it is important that anyone who feels they have something to say, they find a place to say it and be heard.

Prairie gal wrote:I'm also learning a fair bit about pedophiles, though I still don't get the pro-contact people.

It is ok that you don't get them just yet. It's ok if you don't get them ever. By reading, and just trying to understand their arguments, and not just ostracize them or shutting them down, you are making a great deal. This is how, I believe, we grow as a society.

Sea

Prairie gal wrote:Ask a therapist, "Of the 1,000 messed up people you tried to help who had sex with adults, what percent were not harmed by it?"

Petitio principii.

Atma wrote:Everyone that comes here is here for a reason, and despite what you might think, it is NOT to promote their agendas

I can think of several anti vs pro threads here that were started by people in the anti camp. I can’t think of any started by people in the pro camp. To my recollection, YRR has never started a thread preaching a pro-contact message, but merely posted his opinion in threads already started. A few months ago, there was a certain individual in the anti camp who would start a new thread on an anti vs pro subject, inviting opinions thereon, and then denounce the pro camp for expressing their opinions, stating that such discussions were against the forum rules. As was said recently, this section of the forum is more or less self-policing, as any responsible ‘community’ should be. With that in mind, I would suggest that the anti camp avoid starting threads that invite the very opinions they don’t want to hear. Naturally this doesn’t apply in cases where threads have gone off topic.

RecoveringSO wrote:One thing that is being missed is that your comment regarding "ask 1000 care workers" actually IS science.

Could you cite the relevant study?

RecoveringSO wrote:But even on the onset, something is already "off" with me. That is this: Alderson is concerned with the ethics of a child's consent to medical treatment and the use of children in medical research. At the surface (which is all I currently have), his concerns are very valid. The lack of power that children have in our society is troubling to me; such as the power to voice custodianship when in dispute, power in medical decisions, power over the direction of their lives in adoption issues, and many others. In each of these instances, the children have no voice and if the child's voice is even heard or acted upon, this generally turns out to be by the wisdom and compassion of judges who simply did not have to listen to them. But the most glaring thing that seems "off" is this: A child providing informed consent to medical procedures where they are under the watchful eyes of doctors, counselors, clergy and guardians is a far, far different scenario than a child providing "informed consent" behind closed doors, alone, with a man who wants to have sex with them.

The Alderson studies concern children’s capacity to give informed consent to medical treatment, yes. In his book The Age of Consent (2005), Matthew Waites argues convincingly that her work is relevant to other areas, including the sexual arena. However, I would encourage you to examine the rhetoric in other fields where children’s capacity to give informed consent is under discussion. A few months ago I cited a document within the social care arena that itself cited Alderson and proclaimed that practitioners should not assume that ‘even young children’ lack the capacity for informed consent. It is precisely because there is so much dogma and hysteria in the sexual arena that we should pay more attention to the rhetoric and science in more fields where sexual intimacy and its consequences aren’t what’s at stake. It might also be pertinent to look at the rhetoric employed in discussions of children’s capacity in terms of criminal responsibility. Certainly ages of consent were never based on any science.

Incidentally, these are the Alderson studies I was referring to earlier (eight rather than seven):

Alderson, P. (1990) ‘Consent to Children’s Surgery and Intensive Medical Treatment’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 52-65.
Alderson, P. (1992) ‘In the Genes or in the Stars? Children’s Competence to Consent’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 119-124.
Alderson, P. (1992) ‘Did Children Change, or the Guidelines?’, Bulletin of Medical Ethics, no. 80, pp. 21-28.
Alderson, P. (1992) ‘Rights of Children and Young People’, in A. Coote (ed.) The Welfare of Citizens: Developing New Social Rights (London: Institute for Public Policy Research / Rivers Oram Press), Chapter 8, pp. 153-180.
Alderson, P. (1994) ‘Researching Children’s Rights to Integrity’, in B. Mayall (ed.) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced (London: Falmer Press).
Alderson, P. (1995) ‘Consent and the Social Context’, Nursing Ethics, Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 347-350.
Alderson, P. and Mayall, B. (eds) (1994) Children’s Decisions in Health Care and Research: Edited Conference Proceedings (London: Institute of Education, Social Science Research Unit).
Alderson, P. and Montgomery, J. (1996) Health Care Choices: Making Decisions with Children (London: Institute for Public Policy Research).
Alderson, P. and Montgomery, J. (1996) ‘Health Care Choices: Making Decisions with Children – Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations’, Bulletin of Medical Ethics, no. 117, pp. 8-11.

RecoveringSO wrote:But with all of that aside, I guess my complaints pale in comparison to the thousands of children across our disparate societies who are mad as hell that they can't have an adult lover.

Despite how you intended this statement, there is an important point to make here vis-à-vis ‘close-in-age exemptions’. In various legislations, an individual who engages in sexual activity with an individual under the age of consent may escape prosecution if the difference in the two individuals’ ages is less than a certain number of years (commonly 5 years). This completely undermines blanket statements that children under an (in any case arbitrary) age of consent are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity. How come a 14-year-old girl can be deemed to have given informed consent to sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, but if that boyfriend’s age had been 35 she would be proclaimed incapable of giving informed consent? Either she is or isn’t capable, and that capability isn’t magically generated or dispelled on the basis of her partner’s chronological age. This penalises not only the older male (who may be less hormonal, more mature, less likely to simply use the girl) but also any girl who may find herself preferentially attracted to fully adult males. Her friends who are dating teenagers will be entitled to express themselves sexually with their partners without fear of grave punitive measures being imposed on those partners, whilst she must wait several years before being able to do the same. But then, as Waites argues at length, ages of consent were never really about consent in the first place.

Prairie gal wrote:I read in an article the other day that they are activists who are trying to groom society to accept pedophilia as a legitimate form of sexual expression.

There will be some like that, though the truly dangerous ones will not be engaging in dialogue on the Internet, drawing attention to their sexuality and stance. There will also be pro-contacts who aren’t paedophiles. Please note that most of the pro-contacts on this forum are here to give and/or receive support; I personally (as someone who sits on the fence, but can't abide poor argumentation) don't find it supportive to be reduced to a pathology by way of culturally orthodox, unscientific dogma.

Incidentally, is there not a considerable degree of manipulation involved when words like ‘groom’ are being used? I would be inclined to trust a pro-contact type merely citing a study far more than an anti-contact article employing such charged words.

Endymion wrote:Despite how you intended this statement, there is an important point to make here vis-à-vis ‘close-in-age exemptions’. In various legislations, an individual who engages in sexual activity with an individual under the age of consent may escape prosecution if the difference in the two individuals’ ages is less than a certain number of years (commonly 5 years). This completely undermines blanket statements that children under an (in any case arbitrary) age of consent are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity. How come a 14-year-old girl can be deemed to have given informed consent to sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, but if that boyfriend’s age had been 35 she would be proclaimed incapable of giving informed consent? Either she is or isn’t capable, and that capability isn’t magically generated or dispelled on the basis of her partner’s chronological age. This penalises not only the older male (who may be less hormonal, more mature, less likely to simply use the girl) but also any girl who may find herself preferentially attracted to fully adult males. Her friends who are dating teenagers will be entitled to express themselves sexually with their partners without fear of grave punitive measures being imposed on those partners, whilst she must wait several years before being able to do the same. But then, as Waites argues at length, ages of consent were never really about consent in the first place.

We are discussing prepubescents. Laws that you are referring to that destroy a young man's life due to 3 or 4 years' different are unjust, destructive, and imho, detrimental to society. That much, I believe, we can agree on.

Endymion wrote:Much as I admire your effort, RecoveringSO, your assertion that prepubescent children are incapable of informed consent does not cohere with the science done on the subject. I must have cited the science a couple of dozen times in threads on this forum, but the anti-contact camp conveniently overlook it and stick to their orthodox mantras whilst (deeply ironically) proclaiming that the pro-contact camp's arguments are steered by their desires and not science.

The science to date (seven studies by Alderson et al. throughout the 1990s) reveals that children as young as 5 or 6 are capable of informed consent if informed. To the best of my knowledge, there is no science that contradicts this, and the culturally accepted stance of universal prepubescent incapacity to give informed consent (and all statements that constitute expressions of this stance) are culturally generated, not based in science.

RecoveringSO wrote:OK, I got lazy. This isn't as comprehensive as I intially set out to do.

Prepubescent Children Can Not Give Consent Because:

Reason 1: A child's self esteem is not fully materializedHow is this "culturally generated?"
SOURCE(S): http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/feelings/self_esteem.html; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-image
NOTES: While self-esteem does indeed start early in life, one's ideas about ourselves and our own capablilities start early in life. Our self-esteem is formed by our experiences. Our ideas of ourselves are not fully formed until we reach adulthood. Matching the adult with the child gives the adult incredible control over the self-esteem of that child, opening the door for that child's self esteem to be formed by their "lover". As self-esteem and the will/ability to make decisions are directly connected, the child's power to affect or influence decisions in an intimate relationship with an adult, with very few outliers, is absent. While they may understand the principles cognitively, their state of not fully understanding their capabilities renders most children "less than capable" of implementation of many RMSC principles and incapable of enforcing them. Thus, a child can not consent.
RMSC: SEction 4: a, d; f: e, f, g, h

Reason 2: Children Are PowerlessHow is this "culturally generated?"
SOURCE(S): Reality.
NOTES: Regardless of what an adult may believe about themselves, adults have the potential to cognitively, emotionally and physically resist unwanted advances, including that from a lover, and to do so effectively. They have the potential to spot such manipulative tactics as guilt trips for failure to comply, being caused to feel obligated to perform certain functions; as well the ability to seek assistance when their boundaries are being crossed or they are being forced into uncomfortable situations. Adults, on the average, have the power to leave a given situation and fend for themselves, should the need arise. Children lack this power; thus if you lack the power to say "no" to activities requiring consent, you do not have the power to say "yes" to activities requiring consent.
RMSC: 3; 4: d; 5: f, g, h

Reason 3: Children's Belief Systems Are Not Sufficiently FormedHow is this "culturally generated?"
SOURCE(S): http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/How_Limiting_Beliefs_are_Created_in_Early_Childhood.html; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
NOTES: Connected to self-esteem is a child's belief system. Especially from the ages of 0-7, we form beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. Our experiences, even miniscule eperiences, during childhood form our beleifs. Belief works simply by asking a question then determining an answer; sometimes rationally, sometimes otherwise. Examples of this can include: "Why does Mommy read me a bedtime story?" A: "Because she loves me." Q: "Why is daddy yelling at me?" A: "Because I'm not good enough for him to love me." {No sexism intended}. A child, especially a very young child, will inevitably form beliefs about themselves and the world around them. Subjecting a child to an intimate relationship with an adult makes that child highly vulnerable to obtain unhealthy beliefs about themselves and the world around them; and this belief system will haunt them. It also leaves them highly vulnerable to emotional abuse and manipulation that may not be easy to spot and will elude the child's capability to grasp that they are being abused (and, as stated above, powerless to do anything about it). Examples: "Q: Why does *PetName* look so sad? A: Because I told *PetName* 'no' so its my fault." For truly informed consent to occur, a human being must have sound beliefs in themselves and the world around them; without that, they will capitulate to unwanted activities to claim and protect beliefs of being save, accepted and loved.
RMSC: 2: b, c; 3; 4: a, c, d; 5: c, e

Here are some more thoughts to consider:
Reason 4: A child's boundary system is simplistic.

Reason 5: A child's boundary system is not intact.

Reason 6: Children are powerless to enforce their boundaries.How is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 7: Children tend to blame themselves for what goes on around them. Thus, by rebuffing an advance and their "lover" is disappointed, they feel at fault and "responsible" to make their "lover" happy again.How is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 8: Their decision making skills are underdeveloped: How is this "culturally generated?"
http://www.today.com/news/my-kid-would-never-get-strangers-car-t24941

Reason 9: Children rend to react rather than act: How is this "culturally generated?"
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/31/predator-test-results

Reason 10: Can they really absorb, retain and implement all that information in the RMSC? Remember, their hypocampus is not fully formed and the hypocampus is responsible for memory.

Reason 11: Children are natural incapable of considering long-term ramifications of their choices. This foresight is a skill that, while it exists to some degree in children, remains a skill that is underdeveloped.How is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 12: Analytical skills are underdevelopedHow is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 13: Children are pleasure-oriented, doing things that "feel good" in the moment. They lack self-restraint; another skill which takes time to develop.How is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 14: Children require validation from others (after all, the response from others is where their beliefs are formed). How is this "culturally generated?"

Reason 15: They are hardwired to please the adults in their lives, especially their primary caretakers.

Reason 16: Until the age of about 7, they are incapable of separating fantasy from reality; thus why they believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy without second thought.