From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:36:06 GMT

In article <By2K9M.399@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>
>1. A "distasteful" practice between two equals, able to contract more or less
>on the same level to agree to engage in same.
>
>2. A "distateful" and HARMFUL practice between a superior and and inferior of
>vastly different bargaining strengths, one of whom has vastly superior coercive
>power over the other.

Until recently, it was commonly felt that homosexuality was a HARMFUL
practice as well. Today we know better. Perhaps tomorrow we'll know
better and think that adult-child sex is fine as long as the child
gives consent. 

I personally think that any law that establishes the age of consent at 18 
is as crazy as a law that makes it illegal for two men to consent to each 
other. I'm not sure where I'd set the age of consent, maybe somewhere like 
14. But where I personally would set it is somewhat irrelevant since these
are the sort of decisions that get worked out in the state legislature. 
Just as the legal status of homosexual acts are.

>Child molestation on the other hand is a predatory relationship between a 
>strong and a weak party.  The potential for TANGIBLE harm in this case is FAR
>greater than could ever be possible in the former one.

Child molestation is. Of course. That's why we call it molestation. But
I'm far from convinced that every occasion where an adult and a child
consent to sex is predatory or bad for the child.

>The contrast is between a practice which in some people inspires disgust, 
>versus a practice which HARMS a disadvantaged, NON-consenting participant.
>The province of law should be the latter, not the former.  To include the
>former invites government intrusion into every activity from break dancing to
>literature.

The province of the government should be the latter IN YOUR OPINION. And
frankly, in my opinion as well. But when we have a government that
intrudes into the personal question of what kinds of vegetable matter
I can legally smoke and under what ground rules people can consent
to have sex (an agreement that involves money is illegal) and a 
government which intrudes on what one consenting adult is allowed to
pay another consenting adult for a day's work, then I think it is pretty
clear that the province of the government is the former, just as much
as it is the latter.

>I'm much more afraid of government intrusion than I am of ANY
>homosexual I've EVER met, or am likely ever to meet.

Hey, me too. Considering that government intrusion concerns me a great
deal and homosexuality does not concern me at all, this is pretty
much a no-brainer.

Now if we can convince enough other folks to go along with us, we'll
get laws that fit in with our beliefs. And if we don't, we won't. That's
how the political process in our society works.




-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: misc.fitness