Missing Schoolgirl Megan Stammers.

I want to make several points, so please forgive me if I do not look back and check the names of each poster.

Firstly, I disagree with Bags (something I rarely do). I think children are sexual beings from birth and learn to control their pleasure in their own bodies because they soon realise it is not acceptable. I believe children masturbate to gain sensual pleasure. I was certainly capable of arousal at ten. (No, I was not abused by an adult). I taught one girl of 13 who had learning difficulties and we had to keep a close eye on her to stop her masturbating in the classroom as she was not able to understand the boundaries that other children had learnt. I realise that most mothers find it hard to accept the fact that 'innocence' is not the same as 'ignorance'. When parents are told that their child has been engaging in sexual activity the reaction is usually total anger and denial - 'Not my boy/girl, he/she is not like that'.Well, they mostly are 'like that' but luckily most of them don't come to harm.

Secondly, I think school uniform actually encourages men to think of girls in a sexual manner, which is why porn magazines show young women in school uniform. I watched girls of about this age coming out of a secondary school in Switzerland this week. They don't wear uniform, and not a single girl was wearing anything provocative or inapproriate. Ihave noticed the same in other countries.

I am afraid there are many cases of doctors behaving in unprofessional ways with patients - just look at the GMC's Fitness to Practise hearings. They only get publicity if some newspaper thinks it makes a juicy story.

We seem to have come full circle - when life expectancy was short, girls matured early and in the middle ages would be married (if they were rich) or anyway pregnant in their very early teens We are told that Juliet was 13.
Now, we keep our children financially dependent until well into adulthood, but it doesn't stop them being physically and sexually mature - and some of them are very emotionally mature too.

This teacher was an idiot to throw away his career, probably his marriage, and possibly his freedom for the sake of indulging his passion for a lovely young woman. The fact that she wore make-up, dyed her hair, etc. is quite irrelevant. He must have known the law about having sex with a pupil under the age of 18 - if not, why not?

I do agree that not everything illegal is immoral - being in possession of certain recreational drugs is a crime, but apart from the harm it does to families it should be a personal choice.

When my ex was at uni the lads in his student house all used to congregate round the window in mid afternoon to watch the local 'superschoolie' walk past their house in her grammar school uniform. It all seemed [and was] quite innocent at the time. And I sometimes used to get a lift part way to school by a young man in a rather lovely open topped car, and could never understand why he used to do so as, on days when he didn't give me a lift, he'd have what we would have called in those days 'dolly birds' in his car. Never occured to me that the uniform had anything to do with it.

We aren't actually certain that they had sex. Yes, I know it's assumed, but perhaps they never did the deed - that would presumably put the case in a new light?

I agree with everything you say Greatnan. I believe children are sexual beings from birth - my DGS's current preoccupation with a certain part of his anatomy reminds me of that all the time. It is also something that causes a lot of confusion and distress for children who have been sexually abused, as they sometimes find they can be physically aroused even though they may be frightened, horrified and distressed by what is happening. I also accept that the age of consent is fixed arbitrarily but I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. There are very few countries that have a lower age of consent than 16 nowadays - at least in developed countries.

Nightowl - I totally agree that we need to protect children from abuse , even when they themselves may not see it as such. The law does at least use a bit of common sense in not prosecuting young teenagers where there is no coercion and there is no great age difference.

I think she was "asking for it". His responsibility was to say "No!"

Ana I believe he is facing charges of child abduction, as presumably he cannot be charged with a sexual offence unless either he or Megan admit they had sex. That seems unlikely. I suppose public opinion could change either way depending on the outcome.

Summed up in one absent. I'll stop waffling on now

Unfortunately, absent, there have been one or two cases when the judge thought the fact that the girl was 'asking for it' excused the abuser's behaviour. I well remember the stupid judge who said an eight year old girl was ' no angel' when she was abused by her teenage cousin. She was, of course, a girl from a different social class - not doubt if she had been the judge's grand-daughter he would have taken a different view.
The Pakistani gangs who groomed girls for sex also thought that white girls were 'asking for it'. I think it would be a good idea if that phrase was dropped from all our vocabularies. It is too easy for it to be used as an excuse.

Well said Greatnan. It's great to see all the different variations of opinions on this issue. I think it serves to show what a difficult job social workers and other child protection professionals have in assessing the individuals concerned, and finding a way through the quagmire to assist judges in deciding how to deal with such cases. I wouldn't be surprised if this teacher gets a prison sentence, but has it suspended on condition he completes some form of programme to help him tease out all these issues and set some firm boundaries in his own head. The judge will want to sentence in a way that doesn't put him on the sex offender register for all eternity, if things are as they appear so far.

I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me G. If it is true that children are/can be regarded as sexual beings from birth, then that's new to me. It's not something I've ever thought before. In fact, I've always thought young children were 'neuter' as to sexuality. I accept that this may be not true. But I do wonder how much of the supposed sexuality is in fact conditioning rather than innate. It's well known that most adults treat babies differently according to the babies' perceived gender.

I agree that children from a very early age are taught and learn about the inhibitions in their society, but I'm not sure they are conscious of why these inhibitions are imposed, or capable of really understanding why, at least for several years.

I agree about school uniform. I'm against it because I see it as control freakishness and unnecessary.

I agree that Forrest is a fool and should get what's coming to him. But I think that at fifteen, although I was most certainly naive, I wasn't as naive as the young woman in this case if she couldn't think out possible consequences, nor as apparently uninhibited towards men (or even a man) twice my age. Actually, I think such a view of her thinking aptitude is patronising.

Potentially patronising anyhow. The fifteen year olds I hung out with had more nous than that, even though we were innocent of boyfriends or make-up or dressing to kill.

Before anyone bites my head off, no, I'm not saying Megan dressed to kill.

Bags, I am not talking about gender stereotyping - a tiny baby will find its genitals, irrespective of its gender. We have had posts asking how to cope with this as it is embarrassing for adults when children do it in public.

I think that for some girls, and adult women, there is some pleasure in taking a man away from his wife or girl friend - they feel it proves how attractive they themselves must be.
It is difficult to understand how this teacher became so infatuated so soon after his marriage. I feel very sorry for his poor wife. Apparently, he spent most of their anniversary trip to Thailand sitting alone on the balcony. I wonder if she guessed something was wrong.

I did the most stupid things when I was 15, doing even stupider things when I left home at 17. Possibly because I was an only child and very much protected. How I didn't get myself into the most awful downward spiral is due to luck not judgement. I didn't really think of consequences of things that I did although I remember at 17 being horrified by someone I knew having an affair with a married man because I'd been brought up to think that was wrong. It's all very nature/nurture I guess.

Finding one's genitals is not the same thing as being sexualised.

Sorry wrong word my typing ran away with me

It was me that said sexualised I think. I meant sexual beings. I think they are.

Why? Genuine question because I didn,t see evidence of it in my own daughters until they approached puberty.

But parents don't see anything sexual in their own children, do they? I was certainly very sexually aware at ten and so were my girl friends, even though I had no idea of the mechanics of sex and reproduction. I just knew what felt good. My mother would have been horrified if she knew the games we played and she too would have maintained that she saw no signs of it. This was not a case of older girls corrupting us, we were all about the same age, nor were any boys involved. As far as I know, none of us went on to become Lesbians - although I did have a tremendous crush on Miss Fulham, our young, pretty and 'cool' music teacher, when I was about 14. I used to imagine myself rescuing her from a burning building and becoming her close friend. At 14, I had my first date and at 15 I went 'steady' with an 18-year old boy from the local grammar school. We did some pretty hot 'petting' but I was far too afraid of getting pregnant to go 'the whole way'. I got engaged at 17 and married at 18, and I think my mother thought I was a virgin until my wedding day. She had been, and she didn't get married unti she was about 30!
Now I am quite sure that nearly all of you will be outraged to think anyone could suggest that your children or gc are anything other than totally unaware of sex until they reach puberty. I mean physically, not academically. If so, I think they are unusual!

Because of the pleasure they can get from masturbation, and because of the fact that I have worked with abused pre-pubertal children who have told me they found sex arousing (obviously they didn't put it in those terms) and they found this confusing. I think these responses mature with puberty but I think they are there from a very young age, if not birth. I don't know whether there is any research or evidence to back this up.

Nightowl, I think one of the thing that confuses abused children and makes them feel guilty is the fact that in some cases (not all, obviously) the sexual contact has given them pleasure.

No, I'm not saying I didn't see anything sexual in my children, just that it doesn't seem important to them until a certain age (different for different kids, obviously) and they don't seem to understand why adults make a fuss (impose inhibition rules) about certain things. I guess my experience is limited compared with some of you!

Can't say anything has cropped up in Cubs either, and they aren't my kids.

I don't think it was important to me, Bags, I just knew I liked certain sensations. Given my catholic upbringing, guilt was going to be inevitable anyway and I found the priest's questioning in confession very intrusive. He didn't seem surprised though - I guess he had heard it all before.

I think all kids are different Bags and my view may be skewed by my job. But I have also come across children from very ordinary backgrounds who seem obsessed with those feelings. I remember playing the kind of games Greatnan mentioned when I was in primary school, always with other girls. But I did have huge crushes on boys at that age.