Excellent comment.

Consensual relations between someone over the age of consent and someone under it is culturally unacceptable for some good reasons. Some adults ‘groom’ their underage interests, just like most adult men do to adult women (via gifts and flowers) to whom they are attracted. That can really complicate and confuse a kid’s life. Adults shouldn’t be calling kids at home at night to flirt with them. They shouldn’t impose too much of the essence and trappings of their adult worlds on kids whose current interests and priorities are likely different. However, I believe that the idea that an adult is ‘sick’ for becoming sexually aroused by a teenager’s body is ridiculous. I’ve watched adult friends temporarily lust over a minor-aged girl in a bikini and then feel disgusted once told that she’s only fifteen years old. I wish that, instead of feeling disgust, these guys could admit that a sexually mature body can be attractive. They just need to keep the law and their own morals in mind before reacting in any way. My offense was not ‘sick’ – it was inappropriate and inconsiderate and was a reflection on personal problems that I was having – and would have been legal in many places (states and countries) in the world. I am not condoning sex between adults and minors in any way. I just don’t want to be labeled a ‘sicko’.

By the way, while on probation years ago, I almost lost my job when I was asked to take a critical 3-day business trip, but was prohibited, by my counselor, from missing one of my useless hour-long sex offense counseling sessions scheduled during that 3 days. My counselor, however, DID end up skipping that session, as he did three or four others during that year of enlightenment. Usually, when he missed, someone showed up and played a movie for us!

Besides, if you were in the business of selling home security systems and the crime rate for home burglaries was at a historical low would you bother to tell this to your customers? Heck no, bad for business. This guy didn’t bother delving too deeply into the offenders being individualistic and diverse due to the same angle. Bad for business.

I agree that the article omits the full spectrum of offenders.

A 21 year old guy that hooks up with someone he met in a bar who says she is 19, but discovered later she lied and is actually 16, should not be considered a “sex offender”.

The article does highlight that not all “offenders” are the same. Perhaps it should go a step further and explain that some on this list should not even be considered an offender.

We should keep in mind that Dr. Samek is a treatment provider, so it would be a disservice to himself and his colleagues to delve too deeply into those who should not have been caught up in this net to begin with.

Will a new registry be formed for these folks? I’m betting that’s a big ol’ no sir, no ma’am.

More proof that SOR is a bill of attainder aimed at a select, powerless few. Way to go Amerikstan!

The term is meaningless and should be done away with just as the “N” word was used to label an entire group of people and make them a faceless stereotype easy to dismiss, ignore and abuse.

Time to call out those who perpetuate this harmful and meaningless label such as the author of this article. Total Rubbish!