From: castib@pdaxs.techbook.com (Bill Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Age of Consent Laws
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:34:38 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: world
Reply-To: castib@pdaxs.techbook.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line64.uoregon.edu

(Continued from soc.motss.  This discussion is not a motss issue -- it is a  
politics-of-sex issue.)

> The only explanations for this dichotomy I've heard involve assuming
> that people are deluding themselves.

OK.  Thanks for revealing your biases before going on with your argument.

> (I managed to convinced myself I was straight until I was living in my own
> apartment and had a supportive group of gay friends.  Sometimes we
> hide from things that we're not ready to deal with.)

Hmmm...  Well now, this statement is much stronger.  By the second sentence,  
you're indicting everyone who claims they had a positive experience as someone  
who is deluded.  Transporting this straight v. gay anecdote, we arrive at the  
conclusion that all straight people are really gay; they're just hiding from  
it.  That's a little too arrogant for me to stomach.

> Back to the eating analogy: if it were illegal for adults and children
> to eat together, which adults would you find eating with children?

> Answers:
>
>  (a) Adults who willfully chose to disobey laws.  I'd say they're
>  a general issue for a society, and not particularly relevant here.
>
>  (b) Adults with real hangups about eating with children.  These
>  would be people with their own neuroses (actually, psychoses, considering
>  the dangers involved) in the area.  They'd have their own agenda
>  and be lost in their own power trips, with little true regard for
>  the child's well-being and wishes.
>
>  (c) Adults who believed very strongly that the law was wrong or
>  didn't apply to them *and* that children should be shown the truth.
>  I'm always suspicious about anyone who wants to show others "the
>  truth;" I'd guess most people in this group are really in group (a)
>  or (b).

Your three responses are interesting, although you seem to write (c) off even  
before you state it.  You also ignore the possibility that the child  
approaches the adult.  You also vilify civil disobedience in the face of laws  
which are wrong -- your logic will apply equally well to black people wanting  
to eat in a whites-only, or keeping women in the home, or any other kind of  
law which is dehumanizing and unnatural.

> Conclusion: the kind of adults who have sex with children despite the
> laws and taboo are often exactly the kinds of adults who will end up
> hurting children the most.

You seem to pull this one out of thin air.  Before stating your argument, you  
revealed your conclusion to us -- but that's OK if you can argue your point  
rationally and logically.  There isn't an unbroken chain from (a) and (b) to  
your conclusion.

> I would now explain the contradiction I mentioned above by saying that
> most child/adult sex is probably abusive, but that some type (a) adults and
> a few type (b) adults probably did make sure the children were not hurt.

Again, you pull the proposition "most sex is abusive" right out of thin air.   
You haven't established room for a contradiction; only varitey in viewpoint --  
and you certainly haven't established why one part of your "contradiction"  
mutually excludes the other part; the very definition of contradiction.

> Without the laws and taboo, there might be more child sexual abuse

Hang on!  Why?  Groups (a) and (b) disregard the law, and group (c) doesn't  
really exist, remember?  You can't tell me these groups will get any bigger if  
you remove the law -- since their very existence contravenes the law  
fundamentally.  This corollary is entirely unsupported and (it appears)  
unsupportable.  Back up and let's take another run at this one.

> I have no idea what the benefits might be from such non-abusive sex,

How about having a generation without all these sexual hangups?  How about  
having a generation that wasn't erotophobic or felt the need to hide their  
bodies in shame?  How about having a generation that was able to share and  
communicate with each other sensually and tactilly without being sexual -- and  
knowing the difference.  How about doing away with "adult bookstores",  
anonymous sex, and sex-related crime by making people comfortable with  
themselves and each other -- and recognizing sex for the healthy, natural,  
biological activity that it is without the religious, moral, and ethical  
vitriol being poured out.

> or if they could possibly out-weight an increase in abuse.

Well, we haven't established an increase occurs -- so at this point all we  
have is benefits.  Additionally, you overlook the possibility that abusive sex  
might disappear entirely if two (or maybe three) generations were taught to be  
comfortable with their sexuality.  Let's go back to where this abuse comes  
from.  Group (b) disappears entirely as a fabrication of our over-developed  
moral sense.  Group (c) didn't really exist, but if it did, removing the law  
would remove them too.  Group (a).  Hmmm...  Well, if their motivation was to  
willfully disobey the law, removing the law removes them too.

That leaves us only with group (d): Adults who have a strong desire to hurt  
others using any means that are available.  I'd say the current laws don't do  
much to stop them.

> I am quite interested in rational discussion of this area;

I'd say you're one of the few.

> I'll probably have to ignore any replies that strike me as emotional or
> self-serving.

Well, if you decide mine falls into that category, at least let me know.  I  
certainly don't want to come off as either, but if I do then tell me so I can  
adjust my tone appropriately.

David.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex