From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:51:24 GMT

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) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug10.031935.11328@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >
>> >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. 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.)?

>> >(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, the
idea of non-consensual adult/child sex, and that Don broached the subject of 
adults actually raping children abusively, in intimate detail. The claim still 
stands.

>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.)

>> 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? In and of itself, 
it's still as ambiguous as it always was.

>> 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?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.flame:11992 talk.abortion:31310 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:346