From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:11:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <19920817113833ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>In article <fulton.713807217@copper>, on 14 Aug 1992 15:46:57 GMT,
>fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>>
>If the parents approve, and the child is in no way coerced to engage
>in sex with an adult, who then is in a better position than they to
>determine that the experience is inappropriate? In the real world, I
>don't see this as a problem. Where there is, apparently a problem, is
>with incest between a parent and a child. The child, out of
>inexperience, may acquiesce to a parent's advances.
>
	And who is to decide what is coercion? 

	Is it coercion to promise a four year old some candy for "playing"
with Uncle Miltie? Is it coercion if a child lets grandpa fondle her because
she wants to please him? 

	Some case of incest (notably between a mature teenager and a parent
or sibling) may _not_ be problematic - dependent on the circumstances. But
case such as I have depicted above - WHICH WOULD BE LEGAL BY THE STANDARDS
YOU DEFINE would very definately be damaging!

>>Well and good, but what happens when my 8-year old decides I make her
>>go to bed too early, and decides to "seek other guardians", or move out
>>on her own?  While the ability of children to make their own decisions is
>>not directly based on age, it is related, and I don't think the platform
>>covers well enough the gray area of those who think they are capable of
>>making their own decisions, but demonstrably are not.
>>
>You can always try to persuade her that you are acting in her best
>interests. If she is unconvinced, and does not come crawling back home,
>but actually finds new guardians who will make her happier, what's
>wrong with that?
>
	Several things.

	1. It provides a 'loaded gun' for kids to use to force concessions
	   from parents who love them (" Let me do this or I'll leave!")

	2. It would allow people to 'encourage' children to desert their
	   parents and live with them (" If you lived here WE would let
	   you . . .").

	3. It invites abuse (" Come live with me and you can have all the 
	   toys and television you want if you just do one little thing for
	   me every day . . .").

	4. It assumes that a small child will make mature choices as to
	   what is best for their future - including a choice of 
	   guardians and lifestyles.
>
	What if that new guardian is a pimp, a neighbor with a grudge
against the child's parents, or a sex offender? Are _those_ choices sane
ones?

>If she actually is capable of establishing her own independence and
>providing for her own needs, even though she is chronologically only
>eight, sho would have demonstrated her ability to manage her own
>affairs, and would be a de facto adult. You would be due congratulations
>on having raised a precocious child.
>
	And since your party doesn't believe in welfare programs, I wonder
who will support her as an adult when she is no longer able to attract
molesters to support her - her _only_ reasonable means of support at that
age!

	Deal with reality! 

	The world _isn't_ filled with 'nice guys!'

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)