From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Pedophilia as sexual orientation
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:58:03 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:

>roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:

>>LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:

>>And, of course, even if many gay people _did_ commit pedophilia, it
>>would not mean that those who do not should be discriminated against
>>(e.g., could not find employment in our schools);  we just need a better
>>way to determine whether anyone is a pedophile, gay or straight.

[An attempt to clarify the issue by Roy deleted]

Chill out, Roy, and get with the program.  You don't need to flagellate
people because they didn't type the exact wording (or spelling) that you
think they should have.  Point it out nicely, if they claim they meant 
what they wrote, then respond strongly if you need to do so.  That said,
my statement should read, "commit acts of pedophilia." 

The problem is, YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

I wasn't attempting to criticize your grammar.  

My point is, that in classifying acts of child abuse as "acts of
pedophilia" you are implying that the only people who commit these 
acts are pedophiles. 

This statement is not only prejudicial, but it is factually inaccurate.

A great many acts of child abuse are acts of opportunity committed by
heterosexuals on their own family members. 

Just as it would be wrong to classify these people as gay in those 
cases where their victims were of the same gender, it is equally
wrong to classify these people as pedophiles just because their
victims were younger than themselves.


>3) We do not need "a better way to determine whether anyone is a pedophile,
>   gay or straight". What we do need is less hysteria, so that people will
>   not fear or pre-judge others just because they may be different.

Well, here I need to disagree. If I understand you correctly, you are
saying that we shouldn't even be determining whether someone is
a pedophile because that would be discriminating based on status.

However, pedophilia "involves the desire for sexual gratification
from another nonconsenting human being, ...[but unlike paraphilias 
like voyeurism] that human being is a child.  Because of this, 
pedophilia is considered a much more serious crime than exhibitionism 
and voyeurism" (Sarason & Sarason, _Abnormal Psychology_, NJ:  Englewood 
Cliffs, 1989, p. 233; the the leading textbook in its area).  

Now, I think that you would want to argue that pedophilia itself is 
not a crime, but acts of pedophilia are.  OK.  I can agree with you on 
that.  BUT, if someone has been shown to be prone to molest children in 
the past, I think it is fair to say that he or she (though molestors are
predominantly male) should not seek (be given) a job that involves being 
around children.

LET'S MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY. 

Who is it that you want to keep away from jobs involving children?

If you want to keep people who have molested kids in the past away 
from such jobs, you and I are in agreement.

If on the other hand, you wish to exclude people from such employment
even though they may be exemplary, law abiding citizens merely on the
basis of their sexual orientation, I can only view your position as 
unjustified and prejudicial.

Just as it is true that gays and lesbians have served with honor 
in the US military for years it is equally true that pedophiles 
have dedicated their lives to the betterment of young people 
since time began.

Prosecute the illegal act, but let's not persecute the orientation.

Yours in Liberation,

Roy

-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi