In Australia the legal age for sex is 16.
From what I've researched basically it's illegal for anyone to have sex under the age of 16. Which means two experimenting and consenting 13, 14 or 15 year olds are not allowed to have sex legally.
However it is legal for a 16 year old to have sex with anyone older, unless it is a guardian or person of authority such us police, their highschool teacher, their sports coaches ect.
In Australia we can get our learner drivers license at 16 and the legal age for drinking, smoking and gambling is 18

A couple weeks ago i was on the phone to my best friend, her ex boyfriend was driving her home. They dated when she was 16, there is an 11 year age gap between them so he was 27. During the conversation their past relationship came up and the age difference came up. With confidence he said "hey man, as long as she has ID its okay to hit" meaning as long as she has her learners license, and he's clearly still attracted to 16 year olds. This man is now 32. He said that to me with such confidence that it was clear he has said this to people and they must have agreed with him. I instantly snapped and his tone changed real quick, he tried to retract his statement, saying "oh... but i was like.. really fucked up back then.. it was mentaly fucked up"
Like homie you can't pull the "i was fucked up" card at 27. You pull the "i did dumb shit cause i was fucked up mental health wise" when you're 14, 15, 16 and maybe 17. Not 27, if you older than 17 you take responsibility for your own actions.
If this dude didn't have a fiancé 3 kids, one of which is my best friends god daughter, i would have dropped a bag and green lit his ass instantly. Honestly i still might

I'm... dubious of that claim. Isn't most pedophilia purpetrated against young girls?

@Creamegg almost all sex offenders and men obsessed with pornography have at minimum latent homosexual feelings and tendencies.
True enough females are more frequently victimized and the vast majority of sexual abusers are Male. The majority of Male sexual abusers including pedophiles who have been tested exhibited homosexual tendencies.
I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that the sex of the pedophiles victims is of relatively little importance.
Boys and men are sexually assaulted and abused at much higher frequency than is ever reported and recorded.
Homosexuality is hardly the benign or benevolent condition that almost everyone wants to believe it is.
There is not a more self loathing emotionally distressed and mentally unstable group than homosexuals.
Even the ones who undergo SRS or transitioning remain profoundly depressed and at much higher risk for suicide than the general population.

@iThink I... kind of expected that response and while it could be true, speculating into the minds of people is tricky unless you're working off very perticular experience or a strongly backed framework. Like I think I can guess at the framework, something like they are attracted to young girls because they are attracted to how they don't look as much like women and more like boys? But the problem is that its just as easily explainable by the other theory that I've seen which is that the sex of a child is beside the point to pedophilia because its the power which attracts them, and so its just whoever they happen to get their hands on, nothing to do with latent homosexuality or heterosexuality. This theory (to my knoweldge) is much better based in the evidence.

Likewise you're seemingly putting a lot of things together which just aren't the same thing. Its not "Homosexuals" who get SRS. Likewise the emotional health of homosexuals nowadays is far better than it used to be in the 20th century because being allowed to live tends to do that to you.

@Creamegg
You are free to believe what you will
Good luck

I think there is a different dynamic with men (sorry guys) when it comes to sexual .... deviancy. I don't think it has much to do with hetero or homosexual. I think it is a social hierarchy/power dynamic and that means the sex/gender of the target is less an issue - they simply don't think in the terms of gay/straight in those situations.

@iThink As to those that transition and have GRS/SRS. We are NOT more prone to suicide than the general population when screened for co-issues that make a stable life difficult. I've been around the community for 30+ years.

@Anders Google search this you'll find hundreds if not thousands of articles on the subject.
homosexuality and suicidal behavior

Also search for "homosexual latency and sex offenders/ pedophiles

Also search for "relationship between pornography and homosexuality/ latent homosexuality

@tracycoyle that is a valid point. Please understand I am talking about "correlation" and I am not arguing causation with regard to pedophilia and latent homosexuality

@iThink I mean the pornography would surprise me less. If you're not exposed to the idea of there being gay relationships and then you find porn of it, that will be (or will have been up until the 20st cent) people's first exposure so therefore a causative link can be drawn that way. (note this is using the "homosexuality is inherent but can be latent or expressed" )

Likewise the lgbtq+ community is, depending on your lense, more sexually liberated or have less moral qualms around sex (note when I say that most still have STRONG LINES but its more they don't see anything wrong with sex and being sexual so long as all parties concent (in general)). This applies to porn also (most of the time) so in cases where they are more sexually liberated and enjoy porn (two things not mutually inclusive) they are more likely to count amongst figures of those that watch porn.

But I'd like to point out this would probably only refference a deviance in women among areas that are "sexually liberated". Because the vast majority of men have watched porn. To the point where they struggle to do studies on the topic because its difficult to find a group of men that haven't seen porn. But thats a bi-point.

@iThink I copied and pasted your suggestions and am struggling to find anything perticularly relevent. (This isn't to say it doesn't exist but I can't find it).

@Creamegg I am not implying causation I am pointing out that fixation, habituation, "addiction " with pornography (not gay pornography in particular but pornography generally speaking) is a correlative trait in teen and mature males who exhibit latent homosexual feelings.
All pubescent boys are fascinated and curious about the female body. There is a correlative relationship with homosexuality, latent homosexuality and pornography.
Child pornography however seems to be utterly repugnant to Heterosexual men and women.
Homosexual men will actively seek out porn, collect pornographic media, and interact with the porn and try to immigrate the images and activities seen there.

@Creamegg try other search engines

@iThink Again... I literally have no clue where you're getting any of this from. Especially because as far as I knows the data says there is a far bigger gender separation on this than sex separation. MANY women report that their straight male partners want to immitate acts they have seen in porn. Revultion to porn (all) seems to be a very female thing, whereas it seems that the straight male porn scene focuses on very much underage or close to underage girls.

"All" is a big claim and I'm going to need to see some evidence.

Likewise, how exactly are you measuring "latent homosexuality" cause its not like we have a brain scanner that says "beep beep beep latent homosexual detected". The point of it by being "latent" is that its there but non or minimally manifesting, especially not manifesting in the concious mind. I would be interested to know what diagnostic tools are being used to detect this cause I feel any test you do would be wildly biased as to what you count as "latent homosexual behaviour".

I'll try using another search engine to find even one article but right now this just feels like you're making stuff up on the fly.

I know I'm not doing much better than you in terms of all my claims are anecdotal too but if you want I can go off and get you some evidence. Your first assignment is to go onto pornhub and look at how many are "barely legal" "18", "teen", "step brother and step sister" (thus making the implied age lower) et cetera and see whether these are more or less popular than other forms of pornography. Then I guess to use your standards look up "porn consumption men versus women" in google scholorary articles. I bet that the first, second or third articles will back up the points I have made and be relevant. If we were in person I would bet money (or maybe even a cream egg) on it.

@Creamegg The statistics and the research are out there if you want to find it. Because of the precient PC attempt to "normalize" what was once identified as sexual deviancy you will have to work pretty hard to get to the information you seek. There are literally hundreds of subjective articles, papers, essays, criticisms...etc to wade through.
Objectivity on the topic is very hard to find. But it's out there somewhere. Here is something for your consideration: I will paste a paragraph and below that I will paste a hyperlink to the source of that paragraph where you can glean what you will from the information there.
Here is the copied paragraph:
However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
Here is the Link:
[lanternproject.org.uk]

@iThink Well thank you for posting a link to the place. I disagree with the paragraph you copied (its philosophically weak). However now that you've presented me with material I will take my time and go over it. So thank you.

However I will raise one thing I see from a brief skimread:
ACSF Investigators, 1992
Billy et al., 1993
Fay et al. 1989
Johnson et al. 1992

Blanchard et al. 1999
Gebhard et al. 1965
Mohr et al. 1964

The first 4 were on rates of same sex/gender attraction in guys. Concl; its low
The last 3 were on rates of same sex/gender attraction in pedophiles. Concl; its high.
Meta conclusion; more pedophiles are gay than the average man.

Now I want you to take note of one specific thing. The dates on all these things. They were all OVER 20 years ago. There may be a diverse set of reasons why these results are incorrect including.
>Bad data stemming from homophobic malpactice of the researchers. I'm looking at you Blanchard (if you're the same Blanchard as the other Blanchard).
>Bad data stemming from the relative levels of closetedness of the two groups. That is in a centry where homophobia is rife, otherwise "normal" men are not likely to admit they are attracted to guys when it could mean MASSIVE social stigma. Whereas pedophiles don't have much to loose.
>Bad data stemming from different research and data collection methods. I'd have to look into the data collection methods of ALL of these different studies to accurately know this. But (say) for instance the first set used polls and asking the general populace and the second group used crime statistics of crime committed, then its not an accurate comparison. Cause one is measuring active homosexual behaviour and the other is measuring concious homosexual achnowledgement. These are not necessarily the same especially because of point 2.
>Bad data stemming from selective sampling. This is 7 papers? Are there really only 7 papers on this from 1960 through to 2000 (the snapshot of time these papers were taken from.

I'm not necessarily saying its wrong I'm just pointing out the potential flaws in this seemingly rock solid argument. It'd only take one of these methodological flaws of the analysis to be true to be able to discount this comparison. I don't have modern data to throw against this but it would be interesting to know if the data has changed on this.

Do you see my point?

@Creamegg sure the data are old - I don't have a problem with that. Just because societal attitudes toward homosexuality have "evolved" does not change the findings of the data analyses. There is an important distinction between data driven analyses and social construct regrding preferential or recommended attitudes toward the subject.
As I said - it's much more difficult to find truly objective and scientifically data analyses on the topic today because "objectivity" with regard to homosexual lifestyle is all but "illegal" these days.
Please don't misunderstand me here. I would not harm nor attack anyone who was either openly gay, trans, latent (repressed) homosexual.
Having said that I do believe attention should be given to the taboo topic of exposing minor children to homosexual lifestyle. I believe the data show that a child put in the care and custody of a homosexual couple for example is about 30 percent more likely to experience some form of sexual abuse in that environment.
Not to say that children placed in homes of heterosexual couples never are abused - they certainly are.
This is not about bashing anyone or denying "rights" of anyone - I advocate for true and honest and objective acknowledgment of the way things are and NOT the way some people imagine or "want" things to be. BTW there are two houses in my suburban cul-de-sac that are occupied by same sex couples. No children involved at all and they are good neighbors. Not flamboyant - not in anyones face about their rights...just good decent people. Good neighbors. To my knowledge no one here has ever said or done anything hurtful or threatening to them and that is a very good thing. If a stranger didn't know them they would never know they were gay couples.

And the truth shall set us free! The more we know the better off all of us will be.

@iThink Look, I'm sure you're a decent person and if I met you I could brew you a cuppa and you'd pet my dog and we'd get along just fine. You're probably even a nice person.

I'm glad you don't want to murder gay people in the streets.

Thats irrelevent and infact ignores the whole discussion.

I'd like you to listen to the point I'm making here:
"Just because societal attitudes toward homosexuality have "evolved" does not change the findings of the data analyses. There is an important distinction between data driven analyses and social construct regrding preferential or recommended attitudes toward the subject."
This is untrue.
The only two things that the scientific method can reliably gather are opinions and hard numbers. EVERYTHING ELSE is interpretation and interpretation can be dependant on the "evolution" of understanding.

Say we do an experiment right now and gain some numbers. We interpret those numbers and generate a theory and hypothesis. After a number of years we come back to it with the light of new perspective and data and we look at the interpretation and go "hmmm, those theories and hypothesies were flawwed, here is a new one resynthesising the data". We repeat the experiment again and it comes out different and we interpret reasons for that difference. (Either error or other factors changing).

I layed out logical and backed up reasons why conditions may be different now and the flaws in those old studies due to the differences in society back then as well as methodological flaws AS WELL AS the homophobic interpretation. They should not be discounted but should be understood for what they are, old data. Its a disturbing trend in right wing circles I find to rely WHOLLY on old data because new data is all tainted by the gay agenda. I'm going to assume you're cleverer than that. So maybe its time to consider that you might be believing an outdated conspiracy theory that most modern evidence and new data analysis (done by non-homophobes) disagrees with.

Ignore all the illegality. Ignore all the censorship. Ignore public opinion and what society wants to believe. I don't care about that. Have you ever just even considered that you might be wrong?