From: pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:36:13 GMT

In article <6#0msab.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
|> In article <19920817113833ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) 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? 

If either the parents or the child say it is coercion, then I would consider
it coercion. Do you have a better answer?

|> >>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?

I suggest that we define "guardian" to mean someone who will make
a legally binding committment to support the child until maturity,
i.e. finance the child's education, medical costs, etc. at levels
comparable to what the child's parents would have. This would eliminate
most of the undesirable people that you are concerned about.
-- 
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, 
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant 
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15242 alt.politics.elections:11219 alt.politics.bush:2445 misc.headlines:5827 talk.politics.misc:41164