[talk.politics.misc] Pedophiliacs and Flamers

oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (09/29/86)

    Before we get steamed up about outlawing pedophilia, so those hor-
rible men don't **** our little girls (or boys,) then using that chink
in the anti-anti-"pornographers'"  [I punctuated correctly!]  armor(?)
to harass the rest (or springboard repressive legislation, clearly the
idea uppermost in Mark Terribile's mind,) consider: Such proscriptions
are cultural peculiarities of  our ``civilization.''  In many non-wes-
tern-dominated societies (e.g.; the  Lepcha, either from  Indonesia or
Micronesia) older men initiate young girls into sex.   There's no rea-
son to assume that introduction is violent or coercive -  nothing else
in their society is.  In rural Egypt, eight-year-old girls are married
to teenage boys, primarily  to  perpetuate bonding between land-owning
families.   Virginity is lost when  the girl is ready, and  presumably
"ready" has some commonly  accepted definition.  Some  South  American
tribes have marriages of extremely young girls to adult  men, who take
responsibility for  their  feeding, education  and survival,  with sex
happening as soon as the bride reaches puberty (though one suspects an
eager pre-pubescent could have her way; I don't know, I never looked.)
    These anthropological isolates don't always correspond to  height-
ened oppression of women or children.  Typically, these societies have
lower crime rates, staggeringly  lower sexual crime  rates (though in-
ter-tribe rape and abduction of women,  practiced in South America and
actively abetted by the   dominant  culture, is   a sad fact of  life;
luckily no civilized armies ever commit rape as an instrument of  cul-
tural oppression) and far lower rates of  psychopathy or whatever cor-
responds to mental illness  than we.  Given the physical  and economic
constraints  on life in the  locations presented, and presumably  oth-
ers equally interesting and equally  far removed from American  (West-
ern?) society, who will claim <a priori> that those  people's cultures
are inferior to our own?   They'd outlast ours if  we didn't extirpate
their ecosystem first.  [See appendix.]
    Diverging in  time rather  than space, note  that classical Greece
actively  promoted pedophilia as a means  of socializing and educating
its young men.  I have  arguments with their  world-view (slavery, op-
pression of women, incomprehensible language, odd clothes) but suspect
that for the enfranchised sector of their society, the quality of life
wasn't necessarily inferior to ours.  We'd be hard-put to show a place
where civilization flowered as it did in Athens.

   "What, your teacher is GAY?  This must
   stop - I won't have my boy educated by
   some fruit!"
					"Sorry, Socrates."
						    "Good-bye, Plato."

    Closer to home, who is to say that the primary drawback to  sexual
interaction between adults and sub-adults  is  necessarily an  unhappy
relationship among the participants, rather than societal disapproval?
People are quite willful in defining sexual "abuse" based  on external
factors of  age, family ties, responsibility and  power.  It isn't ne-
cessarily perceived that way by  those involved.  But  in our country,
no such relationship  will be evaluated  fairly  for "healthiness"  or
lack thereof, since the agencies  doing the evaluating are by  defini-
tion the (vengeful) bureaucratic and legal establishments, whose judg-
ment is foreordained.  They also guarantee that adults initiating such
contacts  are  willing  to risk extreme  consequences,  a positive se-
lection factor for obsessives and sociopaths.
    [Is being a  sociopath necessarily bad?   It's antisocial by defi-
finition, but does incompatibility with society denote an evil person?
The Germans who sheltered Jews during the third Reich were  sociopaths
too, as were early Christians in the Roman  empire, as are anti-Apart-
heid South African whites.]

    Should we take it as  given  that NAMBLA  or similar organizations
are supporting unalloyed evil, and must be  suppressed?  Is it  imper-
missible to question the internal consistency of  laws regarding stat-
utory rape, particularly when  the "age  of consent"  is mutable  from
state to state?  (For  example, is it criminal  for a  twelve-year-old
boy to have sex with a thirteen-year-old girl, and in that case who is
committing the crime? Is it basically different if the boy or  girl is
eighteen?  Thirty?  Sixty?)

    Those people painting  pedophilia as the  epitome of  pornographic
horror, who use it as the elision of refuge in promoting their author-
itarian world-views and suggested bans on this-n-that, are kindly  re-
quested to tell (pointwise or universally) what their  specific objec-
tions are, why each thing they object to is intrinsically bad (and de-
monstrate its destructive mechanism,) how to make such  evaluations in
a fair and consistent  manner, and  what manner of  sanctions fit  the
"crimes" thus defined.
    After that, they can try to show a causal relationship between any
type of literature and the things  they've established  as destructive
of humans or otherwise evil.  ["Otherwise evil?"  Bad for the environ-
ment, maybe bad for God.  Pedophiles hurt God -- good basis  for laws.
Almost forgot bad for investment climate for multinationals.]   Then I
might sympathize with their censorious ambitions.

    The naive social scientists of forty years[***] ago thought educa-
tion might be a cure (or prophylaxis) for authoritarianism and the de-
sire to dominate  others.  Let the  prospective censors and forbidders
show their skill with that weapon:
	+------------------------------------------------------+
	| Tell us, the skeptical audience, why we should fore- |
	| close people's liberty to publish pedophilia or any- |
	| thing else.  Be specific with regard to the criteria |
	| listed above.  Fair enough??			       |
	+------------------------------------------------------+

		    ******************************
    (Pan to oaf expounding, instead of MS, MT, that weird  Ken  Arndt,
and the RFAIP[****] with their shears and blowtorches.)
		    ******************************

    These discussions of  nuking  porn preventively, en   avant of any
proof of damage to  anybody,  represent the height of distastefulness.
I would far rather censor the religious demagogues, those unscrupulous
creatures who delude foolish humans into contributing  their money and
time to the destruction of their educational system, the oppression of
their neighbors, the  re-identification of the world into   confronta-
tional ingroup and outgroup divisions, and in some cases to outfitting
private armies.  If it's illegitimate to want that,  it's far more il-
legitimate to get after the sexually explicit types, who sell peculiar
fun rather than mass enslavement disguised as convenient, ersatz hell-
fire.

    Thank you very much.

Oded A. Feingold   MIT AI Lab  545 Tech Square  Cambridge, Mass. 02139
{allegra|ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf  OAF@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU  617-253-8598

----------------------------------------------------------------------
			      Disclaimer

    I don't want to upset all your comfortable presuppositions.  Look,
why don't you simply assume that this entire  article is a  deliberate
and malicious pack of lies from beginning to end, designed to rot your
mind and  foster Communism among   the children in  your neighborhood,
that this is the greatest and most perfect society the  earth can ever
produce, sound as a nut, jeweled in every facet, and the pornographers
and  all their customers will only  receive the eternal damnation they
so richly deserve  if you personally  parboil  them ahead of time?


			       Appendix

    A trivial   example: Rainforest residents  in   South America have
maintained stable cultures, in coexistence with their environment, far
better than the Spanish- or  Portuguese-influenced "civilizations" now
invading their territories.  The latter desertify the  forest, destroy
the food chain, wipe out  any self-maintaining ecosystem, and engender
starvation or emigration for everyone.  They show no ability to  match
population size or growth to the land's carrying capacity,  have among
the highest reported violent crime rates in  the  world, and each year
spread  horrible diseases  (malaria, schistosomiasis,   leishmaniasis,
others?)  into new regions.  In so doing they decimate any natives  in
those  areas and  diminish their own ability to  survive  in the lands
they've colonized, even assuming agricultural production suffices.  As
the financiers, co-exploiters (have a BigMac) and behavioral analogues
of  such lethal cultures, do we  really  have any business supplanting
the native culture with our own?  [*] [**]
    (Why this appendix?  Some of these tribes incorporate "pedophilia"
as listed above  into their culture.    We  cheerfully  destroy  these
survival patterns and supplant them with our own preconceptions, and I
include American evangelical groups among the active destroyers.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[*]     Caufield, Catherine  "IN THE RAINFOREST"
		University of Chicago Press, 1984.
[**]    Kelly, Brian and London, Mark "AMAZON" 
		Holt Rinehart Winston 1983.
[***]   Adorno et. al., "THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY" 
		Harper Bros. 1950.
[****]  Ray Frank Artificial Idiocy Program