From: sandro@world.std.com (Sandro D Wallach)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:47:34 GMT

dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec19.040206.28702@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley
>Miller) writes:
>> >>
>> >>Children are not able, physically (before puberity), emotionally, or 
>> >>psychologically, to handle the responsibilities and pressures of a 
>> >>sexual relationship. (This is well documented, unlike many of the claims
>> >>made in this forum by those who would equate everything homosexual with
>> >>NAMBLA)

... some tense words exchanged, then:

>THIS can be seen both ways -- if an adult and a child have a power
>struggle around eating, chances are very good the child will grow up with
>some neuroses related to eating.  If there is no power struggle and the
>child simply experiments or experiences food without the psychoemotional
>drama, they avoid the neurosis-creating anxieties.


Excellent analogy.  Using it, I begin to understand another facet of
this debate.

(The debate I'm interested in is how we as a society can reduce the
incidence and long-term effects of sexual child abuse; you may frame
the same issue differently or may be talking about another issue.  I'm
writing as an intellectual here, but my interest in this area is highly
personal, since I was sexually abused as a boy, as were many of my
friends and boyfriends.)

I've been thinking about the contradiction between some people saying
(1) sex with adults is always bad for children (and having some
evidence behind their words), while other people said (2) sex *itself*
isn't the problem (and they often spoke from personal experience).

The only explanations for this dichotomy I've heard involve assuming
that people are deluding themselves.  That may be true in part -- I
know I've deluded myself about traumatic areas of my life.  (I managed
to convinced myself I was straight until I was living in my own
apartment and had a supportive group of gay friends.  Sometimes we
hide from things that we're not ready to deal with.)  And yet there's
no way I can just discount people's stated and heart-felt beliefs.  So
I've been a little confused about this contradiction.

Back to the eating analogy: if it were illegal for adults and children
to eat together, which adults would you find eating with children?
Which adults would risk decades in prison?  Which adults would risk
causing the trauma the child might experience simple from being
involved in what society called a serious crime?

Answers:

  (a) Adults who willfully chose to disobey laws.  I'd say they're
  a general issue for a society, and not particularly relevant here.

  (b) Adults with real hangups about eating with children.  These
  would be people with their own neuroses (actually, psychoses, considering
  the dangers involved) in the area.  They'd have their own agenda
  and be lost in their own power trips, with little true regard for
  the child's well-being and wishes.

  (c) Adults who believed very strongly that the law was wrong or
  didn't apply to them *and* that children should be shown the truth.
  I'm always suspicious about anyone who wants to show others "the
  truth;" I'd guess most people in this group are really in group (a)
  or (b).

Conclusion: the kind of adults who have sex with children despite the
laws and taboo are often exactly the kinds of adults who will end up
hurting children the most.  (I would now explain the contradiction I
mentioned above by saying that most child/adult sex is probably
abusive, but that some type (a) adults and a few type (b) adults
probably did make sure the children were not hurt.)

Corollary: Without the laws and taboo, there might be more child
sexual abuse, but there might well be *much* more non-abusive sex
between adults and children.  I have no idea what the benefits might
be from such non-abusive sex, or if they could possibly out-weight an
increase in abuse.  (In my mind, nothing could out-weight such an
increase, but I'm biased by my past.)

Asbestos: I advocate research and understanding, not sweeping changes
in such poorly-understood areas of law and society.  Also, I'm going
out of town for longer than my (very short) news expiration time, so
if you want me to read a reply, e-mail it.  I am quite interested in
rational discussion of this area; I'll probably have to ignore any
replies that strike me as emotional or self-serving.

I hope everyone enjoys this amazing time of year.   :-)

	-- sandro    (sandro@ELF.com)