From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization:  Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:04:56 GMT

Darcy Brockbank writes:
>Tom Chapin writes:
>> What sort of
>> revolution would occur if we treated sex precisely as "everyday,
>> normal behavior" like eating, sleeping, and taking a shit?  
>
>Sex is not like eating food. 

Hmm, it is when some of us do it...

>Sex can mean power, and love, and the combination can mean 
>damage to formative people (ie: children).

So can cars, yet people don't call for banning them whenever a child
gets run over.  Perhaps because since the Luddites went out of favor
there haven't been any religions which consider driving cars the
activity of the Devil.

Power is involved in any activity.  The more important the activity,
the more powerful its effect on us.  To flee from power is to flee
toward a trivial life.  To keep children away from all activities
which are of any importance is to refuse to allow them to mature and
to try to keep them dependent on you forever.  Which is in itself an
act of manipulative power.

(I'm still trying to parse the phrase about power and love, and
trying to understand how anyone could possibly feel that love could
combine with anything else to make it more dangerous.  Love must be
truly terrifying to some folks...)

>We've never heard of "eating related abuse of children" and
>we have heard of "sexual abuse of children."

I'll assume that by now others have given the obvious replies
regarding eating-related disorders...  Any activity can become
imbued with power..so perhaps since some children are bulemic,
we should deny food to everyone under eighteen...

>Human Sexuality is a powerful thing, and you're incorrect to
>trivialize it with comparisons to eating. 

"Human Sexuality" does not become more powerful than the act of
eating simply by capitalizing one and not the other.

>Human sexuality is
>closely tied to our conciousness, and our sense of self.

And which human activities are tied to neither?  Using emotionally
loaded phrases does not make an argument.

>If sex was no more an act than eating, why are people so damaged
>by sexual assault and rape? 

If the act causes physical damage, they are damaged by physical
damage.  If it occurs as a result of threats of physical damage,
the damage is caused by fear of physical damage.  If not, the damage
is caused by the reactions of those perverted by sex-related phobias
teaching those around them that some acts are to be treated with
horror.  If you have ever raised a child, and seen children raised
by a variety of people, you will notice that some children run and
play and receive cuts and bruises which they slough off if their
parents react calmly, while others receiving more minor bruises
react with shrieks of agony if those around them demonstrate a
history of overreaction.

>Sex is a powerful thing. It can be a weapon.

So can a spoon...let's ban them for anyone under eighteen, lest they
all be gagged with them.

>In any event, I assure you that Psychologists would think that 
>sex with one's mother at the age of 15 is not healthy behaviour.

Were Masters and Johnson among the experts on sexuality who were 
consulted?

I will content myself with stating that, just as the vast
preponderance of harm due to drugs is not due to the drugs
themselves, but due to the activities of those who commit any
harmful acts to fight them, so too most of the sexual harm in our
society is not caused by acts of sexuality, but by acts committed
by those who try to demonize sexuality.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)
Xref: sparky soc.men:15630 soc.women:15922 alt.child-support:2970