strongly seconded!

yes, it really gets hard to define if one doesn't use the legal concept, since in english we don't seem to have a simple and clear word for someone under the age of consent.

the age of majority is 21 in mississippi and 19 in nebraska and alabama.

i think using the words child/children and adult is problematic. one's own implicit understanding of what the words means isn't necessarily the same as another person's.

child can mean an infant, someone prepubescent, someone under the age of consent, someone under the age of majority, someone's offspring, someone younger than one, someone who isn't fully grown, etc.

even minor is problematic, since it means someone under the legal age of majority according to their own laws -- and that varies from 14 to 21 just in first world countries.

adult can mean someone past puberty, someone out of school, someone over the age of consent, someone over the age of majority, someone legally recognised as an adult, someone married, someone fully grown, etc.

legally, in parts of the world (including much of canada and part of the usa) an 18 year old is a minor, not an adult; in other places (such as scotland or american samoa) a 16 year old is an adult, not a minor.

i recognise that the mix of cultures and countries makes it harder to write what we mean so that it's explicit and clear, but since the statement is meant to appeal to pagans from many parts of the world, i think it would be best to avoid statements that would be unethical to some.

while it's more unweildy, perhaps using terms like age of consent and age of majority rather than adult and child would causae less confusion.

"As minors are legally unable to give consent to sexual activities, we consider all sexual actions with minors to be non-consensual, and therefore they are not to be tolerated within our community."

except that's untrue most places; age of majority and age of consent aren't the same.

one can legally give consent to sex whenever one is over the legal age of consent according to the laws one is subject to. in most of europe, oceania, and north and south america, age of consent varies from 14-18, sometimes depending on gender.

a minor is anyone under the age of majority (the age at which one assumes all the responsibilities of adulthood; if one is an emancipated minor the rules are also different) in one's country/culture/jurisdiction. in the same areas age of majority ranges from 14 to 21.

in new zealand age of majority is 20; most of the uk 18 (scotland 16); most of canada 19; in australia and most of the usa 18 (with a few exceptions that range from 15 to 21 in the usa).

but in nz, scotland, and canada age of consent is 16; australia and the usa it varies from 16 to 18.

as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i'm a survivor of severe childhood sexual abuse.

a statement against sexual abuse is very much about me and my experience -- just as it's about everyone who's been affected by sexual abuse.

if that's 'stupid drama' to you, i'm very glad i don't know you.

eta: thaks, admin, for deleting that attack; it really threw me!

you're welcome :)

ananta_of_maine, the interaction i'm aware of is athttp://www.brendanmyers.net/wickedrabbit/index.ph...

in that forum redbird posted a thoughtful and detailed breakdown of draft #4.

juniper's first response -- posted from a moderator accct -- was "Wow two pages of grammatical corrections is a little OCD/anal retentive/creepy"

redbird took exception (rather politely, imo), and juniper's next response -- again, posting from a moderator acct and speaking in the royal "we" to emphasise her role as moderator -- said in part, "While we appreciate your efforts here, you do come across as abrupt, domineering and with a "high and mighty", "I know better than you", "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude."

fwiw, after reading the fora on the draft statement, that's not the impression i got at all. nor do i know either redbird or juniper, so i have no preconceived ideas about either of them.

"And for the record I wasn't acting as a moderator when I made those posts, I was just posting as myself. "

perhaps that was unclear? my experience is with fora where one posts as a moderator (signified by one's title, avatar, etc) to speak as a moderator; mods also have separate accts for private use.

you feel the ethics statement isn't about any of us?

going by the legal meansing, private groups and individuals *can't*, since it's a rule for the govt.

but if you mean in general, should a person or group have control over what soemone says?

my general rule for myself is that if i'm in someone else's space (their home, their business, their gathering, their website, etc), i know that they get to make the rules and it's up to me to either respect them or leave -- and if they're in my space, i expect them to respect my rules or leave.

so if a group says "you can't talk about x here", it's my choice. i can stay and not talk about x, or i can leave and talk about x elsewhere.