wdoherty@bbncca.ARPA (Will Doherty) (01/22/84)
This is an attempt to respond to a variety of messages which have appeared on motss in the pasat week or two. I will attempt to be brief. To Charles B. Francois (decvax!aalegra!cbf): NAMBLA stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association, not National Man/Boy Lovers Association, mostly because some Canadians are members of the organization. To "Marty": Responses come in two forms--reasoned and unreasoned. Yours was one of the latter. I only hope that you consider that perhaps people who have "goy" names may have roots of which you cannot surmise. In fact, I have my share of relatives who died in Hitler's camps. Your insensitivity in equating consensual cross-generational relationships with mass genocide should be apparent. If it isn't, there isn't anything else I can say. Ruth (decvax!decwrl!rhea!swshub!obelix!ruthr) correctly points out that power imbalances exist in a variety of relationships that occur in our society, but that the only such relationships against which there is legislation is the cross-generational relationship. She also points out correctly that children are not pure, sexless creatures, but indeed typically have sexual urges before they reach kindergarten (age ~ 5) which continue typically for 5 or 6 decades. She feels that the penetration of any young child is criminal assault. Astonishingly, most pedophiles would agree. (Note, in current terminology pedophile refers to someone who likes prepubertal children, whereas pederast or ephebophile refers to someone who likes postpubertal youth.) Most pedophile sexuality consists of stroking, kissing, cuddling, and oral sexuality. Punishment for such "offenses" (i.e. crossgenerational sex involving someone younger than 16 years old, or 18 in some cases) may result in long-term imprisonment of "sexually dangerous offenders" in institutions where they may be held long beyond the term of their sentence until they are no longer designated "sexually dangerous." I visited one man who has spent 40+ years in Bridgewater State Prison for one consensual sex act with a 14-year-old boy who didn't want him to go to jail. Steve Dyer (decvax!bbncca!wdoherty) asks me to discuss this issue "seriously." I have from the beginning. You wonder if I mean that "we are discussing food co-ops run by 4 year olds." Well, if a 4- year-old wants to run a food coop, I see no reason why not. I do not believe that "children are simply smaller adults," but that adults and children are people, and people have certain rights. I believe the rights enumerated in the NAMBLA resolution are inalienable for all people. I do agree that children are, in general, physically "weaker" than adults. I do agree that children learn more about the world that surrounds them as they grow older. I do not see these two characteristics as crippling disadvantages which require that we treat children as incompetent, merely that we treat children with an awareness of their limitations. We should gauge those limitations not on the basis of age, but on the basis of ability and maturity. As far as NAMBLA "get"ing "off" about "Children re self-determining beings," I agree with the view you impute to NAMBLA. Children are self-determining beings. And as far as the motives you impute to NAMBLA for *unanimously* approving the resolution, I have no doubt that most of the people who approved that resolution believe sincerely in the tenets of that resolution. I only hope that some of the child abusers of the world, those who perform *nonconsensual* acts on children, both sexual and non-sexual, will realize that their actions cannot be permitted in a society which provides certain rights for all people. No doubt, part of the reasoning which allows such nonconsensual "molestors" to rationalize their actions is this inflexible and hypocritical ethic, promulgated by the societal majority, of complete powerlessness, frigid asexuality, and dearth of basic human rights in childhood. Wow, have to stop for a break... more later.
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (01/22/84)
Can we assume from your last posting that NAMBLA is not asking for a reduction of the age of consent, but seeks to remove that concept entirely? If so, it seems that you are trading off common sense for a kind of ideological purity, one that does not jibe with reality. The mandate recognizing children as a protected class is very, very old. There were laws recognizing that as long ago as ancient Greek and Roman societies. I find the assertion that the current status of children arises out of a patriarchal, sexist, anti-human, capitalist, [fill-in-your-favorite- derogatory-adjective] society unconvincing. At the very LEAST, I want to hear reasons backing up that assertion. What rapacious self-interest does Western Society have to ensure that children remain impotent until some agreed upon age? Indeed, from a purely capitalist point of view, they look like a vast, unexplored resource. What better way to increase our own fortune than to put them to work, so that they may be manipulated by advertising to give up their precious hard-earned dollars. The Saturday morning TV commercials pale before such gigantic economic potential! Parents hold the rights of their children in escrow until they reach the age of consent. In a sense, they act as stewards for those inalienable rights bestowed upon all people, until such time as the children are of an age to assume them. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca