From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
Subject: Re: Adult women seducing male children
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:02:12 GMT

In article <gfLD4Ty00Uh_I_JGYn@andrew.cmu.edu> ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gerard Deckert) writes:
>
>kestrel@shakala.com (Kelley James) writes:
>>[lotsa reactionary stuff about NAMBLA deleted]
>>I feel like the laws protecting minors are fairly arbitrary, adn while 
>>they are of value I have known some minors capable of making informed 
>>sexual consent and, dealing with the consequences of it in a fashion much 
>>more mature than the adults around them.

You are then saying that 'even if you are smart enough to make the right
choices, you can't because we say so.'. I have no desire to have sex with
anyone anywhere NEAR that young, but I have to make a couple of
statements, because I was in that position. I was involved with a 34
year old man when I was 12. I knew what I was doing, I knew what he
wanted, and I knew what -I- wanted. For me, it is all a matter of
consent. Not -coerced- consent, but open consent.

>>But I do NOT believe that anyone under the age of about 12 could 
>>possibly give informed and knowlegeble consent.
> 
>    Isn't 12 just as arbitrary as any other age?  Your argument doesn't
>get any better by substituting one arbitrary value with another...

Twelve is still an arbitrary age, but it does coincide with another
occurance.. puberty. There are societies that consider 12 to be the age of
maturity (or is it 13, when does one have their Bar-Midzfa? (I know it is
spelled wrong)). This might be the only legitimate restriction that I
could see, because it then coincides with sexual-maturity. Any other age
that is generically chosen is nothing more than a simple way for a
government to handle the issue of sex without actually having to spend any
effort on education. It is politically safe. 

>>Sex with children is wrong, it's a crime, in case you haven't figured it 
>>out.  I will never support a group that promotes sexual relationsion with 
>>children.   
>
>    What do you mean by children?  What about sex between children?  At
>what age is it wrong?  What aspect of age makes it right?

Also, which country do you happen to be standing in when you make that
statement?

>    To sum things up, I am on principle opposed to any sort of age-based
>restriction (and to arbitrary restrictions in general, but that's a
>story for another time).  The important restrictions involve
>consensuality - an absolute must in _any_ situation, romantic or
>otherwise.  Instead of having laws protecting children from themselves,
>or protecting children from adults, or even protecting adults from
>children, emphasis must be placed on teaching children (and certain
>adults!) about sex and its implications.  They should be taught to
>respect and admire their own bodies, so they learn to act responsibly,
>and learn what consent is all about, and how to know when it is
>appropriate - so they are capable of judging for themselves how they
>wish to act, and with whom.  The point is, despite what parents hope
>for, children will have to (and want to ) make decisions about sex - the
>best thing a parent can do is help the child to be ready to make an
>intelligent decision.  Children should not be hidden from the world -
>they should be prepared for it.
>    Does this make sense to anyone else?  I'd like to hear some feedback
>on this...

I could have written the above paragraph. I agree completely.


Scott

-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
smoir@world.std.com            \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
Also: pentangl@ursa-major.spdcc.com   # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory