From: hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude,alt.sex
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Summary: Sex vs coerced/forced bahavior
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:59:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1992Sep14.045939.19211
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep12.102109.29897@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
>>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.
>************:^^^^^^^
> [stuff deleted]

>If we lived in a sexually-oriented society, can imagine a coffee-table
>book that had pictures of adults in sexual relation to children.
>Presumption is they are doing something worthwhile and human-positive.
>
>The meaning is what we define. Currently we define that children, in
>essence, are NOT sexual creatures. We-all seem to think that the way
>we see things NOW defines reality. We are so denied around sexuality
>that it >seems< to be 'obvious' re: children. I was sexual as a child.
>If I ended up myself being denied around it, it was because it made my
>mother extremely uncomfortable. It was her problem, but I picked it up.
>
>[personal experience/refelation RE: 8 YOA nude experience with 15 YOA domestic
> deleted]
>
>We charge sex with being "non-innocent". I never thought so, but I had it
>reinforced to me from EVERYWHERE. They were NOT my values, they were the
>values of those around me. I had my innocence stolen from me by a society
>ashamed of sex.

I think should one chedks relevant statutes, one'd find that sexuality between
persons of the same age & those +/- three years is condoned.  However, sex
between persons of greater than 3 years is not allowed.  This prohibition
stems from the child labor era & the social policy in the U.S. that establishes
18 YOA as the age of consent to a variety of "adult" responsibilities.

At the turn of the century, marriages at 14 & even as young as 12 were allowed.
Yet with that, also a person of those ages stood trial as an adult for criminal
acts.  Additionally, many (or the majority) of the 12/14 to 18 YOA group were
denied educations due to responsibilities for earning a livelihood.

These were social policy decisions & not intended to limit sexual matuation. As
a matter of that policy, sexuallity between an adult (person over 18 YOA) or
person 3 years older engenders an element of coercion or a real concern for
a coercive relationship.

Sex between consenting juveniles is not a criminal behavior nor is it legitimat-
ely the interest of the state.  However, it is the interest of the state when
sexual "training &/or education" is involved.  It is the state that has re-
quired education & sets educational standards.  These goals are demanded by
the public that votes the statutory authority & the tax money to finance these
goals.  When a parent, interest group goes to court & sues for some injunctive
change to a school board's actions, it is you.  You (vis-a-vis all of us) who
are living within the responsibilities & benefits established in the document.

Finally, given the social policy & the generally accepted premise that sex
between a juvenile & an adult is inherently coercive, there are laws that 
specifically prohibit specific actions between juviniles & adults.  Incest is
another specific behavior that is prohibited by social policy.

>Damn stupid. The "way things are" is not the truth of human nature.

Why?  Is the breading population in the country so low as to require the
breading for population purposes of young males & females by adults?

The NAMBLA folks espouse your live of reasoning, but deny or choose to ignore
the coercive nature of adult child relationships.  As I'vve said, nothing 
legally prevents children from experimenting &/or learning sex with another
child.

>The truth of human nature would be to allow children to do what THEY
>wished to explore and to do it without >judgement<. 

What you are proposing here is a quantum leap in reason. Children & children
is not criminal, but what prevents an adult coercing a child into an sexual 
act?

>My bet is we would
>be far more sexual and far more psychologically healthy. 

I doubt very much this premise.  Talk to the survivors of childhood sexual
acts with adults (incest or whatever) & you'll find that this is not as healthy
as you assume.

>When sex itself
>is allowed its own nature it will seek its own level, but that level is
>damn different than what we live now. 

Maybe so, but amoung persons of equal socialization & maturation.

>Now, we are challenged always to
>make a judgement about significance. This is silly, because our sexual
>nature is not a rational act. [syntax] Let the body lead and the mind follow,
>and we will be a healthier race of people. I trust human nature if allowed
>to pursue its own course in a loving world.

Your argument is weak, in that, it fails to address consequences of actions.
I doubt a 12 YOA child can assess the consequences of its actions.

Ta,

BH
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution