From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:15:05 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug15.155124.7718@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.172446.26871@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug12.020846.7594@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy
> >> In article <1992Aug10.031935.11328@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, you're correct - I thought it was a different thread.
> >> >Nevertheless, my two points remain valid.  (1) the subject of child
> >> >sexual abuse was *not* broached by Ms.  Garvin.  (It was broached, as
> >> >you corrected me, by Chaney.)
> >>
> >> As already pointed out, his .sig referred to concensual adult/child sex,
> >> not rape.
> >
> >"adult/child sex" is statutory rape.
>
> Now tell me something I don't know.

Perhaps you should be more specific?  :-)

> Why do suppose they add the word "statutory" if not to emphasize the
> fact that many cases of adult/child sex cannot be intuitively
> characterized as "rape" (because of the advanced age and/or maturity
> of the "victim", absence of violence or coercion, etc.)?

To distinguish it from forcible rape.  When you said "not rape", it implied
neither classification of rape.

> >> >(2) Don's comment was in response to the stupid and insensitive comment
> >> >by Suzanne Forgach.
> >>
> >> Larry, there's a big difference between discussing such matters in
> >> detached, abstract generalities, on the one hand (as Suzanne was doing),
> >
> >No, she wasn't discussing child sexual abuse at all, she was discussing
> >rolling a condom onto a cucumber in class.  By attempting to equate this
> >with child sexual abuse, she was *trivializing* child sexual abuse.
>
> She was expressing the opinion that the condom/cucumber thing was tantamount
> to kiddie porn. I'd say her perspective on the issue (which I agree is rather
> extreme) was still in the realm of consensual adult/child sex, rather than
> what we normally think of as "rape".
>
> >> [big difference between] ... and admitting
> >> "I was raped" on the other. I still maintain that Don was the first to
> >> truly hammer the issue home in talk.abortion.
> >
> >(Which is different from your original claim.)
>
> In what way? My original claim was that Susie broached, in general terms,

And above you state that Suzanne was previously discussing it, in "detached,
abstract generalities".

> the idea of non-consensual adult/child sex,

And previously you corrected me by pointing out that *Chaney* broached
the subject with his .sig (which originally did *not* say
"with the child's consent").

> and that Don broached the subject of
> adults actually raping children abusively, in intimate detail.

Perhaps you'd care to show me the post where he did so?  All I remember is
him saying that he *could* provide intimate detail.  I agree that if
Suzanne *had* taken him up on his offer to do so that it would have been
appropriate to move it to email (or possible talk.rape or
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery).

I agree with you when you say that he hammered home the difference, but
not that he provided any details.

> >I can accept this.  And I
> >will maintain that if some insensitive idiot claims that getting a
> >cucumber ready for "safe salad" :-) constitutes sexual abuse, then the
> >issue *needed* to be hammered home.
>
> (Which is different from your original counter-claim, i.e. that Forgach
> broached the subject in the first place.)

I already admitted that I was confused about this; see the first quoted
paragraph of this post.

> >> And I also maintain that the wording of his post was ambiguous
> >
> >I agree; I had to reread it to realize that it couldn't possibly be
> >what you assumed it to be.
>
> You mean, in the light of the later revelations, right?

Wrong.  I read it one way, said "Wait a minute, that *can't* be what's
being said," reread it, and said "Oh - *that's* what was meant."

> >> and the braggy, confrontational tone was HIGHLY
> >> unusual for a revelation so intimate and personal.
> >
> >Why should he be apologetic for something he wasn't responsible for?
>
> In what way was he not responsible for his own words?

He was not responsible for being abused.  There's no reason that the tone
of his words should be apologetic, ashamed, or whatever tone *you* feel
would be appropriate.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)