From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: espousal of natural sexual freedom
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:01:24 GMT

hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway) writes:
> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>>dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>>
>>>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.
>>>***********:^^^^^^^
>>>...
>
>>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...
>>
>>We charge sex with being "non-innocent". I never thought so, but I had it
>>reinforced to me from EVERYWHERE. ...
>
>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.

The statutes reflect our current conception of what is permissible.

>
>...
>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.

Once again, a presumption is written into law. Harold and Maude were illegal,
according to this law - or was Harold of consenting age.

>
>... 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. ...

You're right, WE are the state;

>...
>Finally, given the social policy & the generally accepted premise that sex
>between a juvenile & an adult is inherently coercive, there are laws ... 

This begs the question. I am arguing for a progressive movement toward a
society where sex has had negative charge removed from it. Could there
be violation, coercion, rape, in such a society? Well, do we think we will
ever rid ourselves of these energies? No. So sure, there's room for abuse.
It's my notion that these crimes will be far less prevalent in the society
I'm advocating.

>>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?

Breeding has nothing to do with this discussion.

>
>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.

You take it for granted that adult/child relationships ARE coercive of
necessity. In the society I describe, what need would adults HAVE of
children? I'm proffering that the mature adults could engage in sexual
acts with children in a nurturing way. I think my image implicitly
assumes that the child's curiosity is what the adult answers; no way
am I suggesting that the adults should seek the children out to have sex
with them. The idea is that a parent will have some sense of where their
child is with it - when the child wishes to explore sexual contact, there
are other children, older children, young adults, and so on.
Look, trash me for being an IDEALIST, I admit it; in this society sex
is a positive thing, a sharing of pleasure and affection, and anyone who
initiates a child into sex is presumed to be doing it to help the child
mature into a fully functional member of society.
Lord knows you can question whther human nature can be trusted this way.
I'd say certainly not now, that's obvious. How long would it take to
get to this other society? Generations. Who knows how many. The question
is how to promote it, how to start. The first thing is to try to produce
a generation free from neurosis, obsession & compulsion, by not making
sex a wrong thing for children to explore. All the age-laws can stay as
they are for quite some time.

I'm not interested in this society SO THAT adults can have sex with
children. I'm interested in this society because sex will be healthy
and that will help us to be healthy overall. All this children issue is
to say we live under the presumption that it must be coercive or wrong,
and I'm saying our opinion of that is subject to change as we change.
To say it might end up not being thought wrong is not to say that that
is what we would want. Perhaps we will prove something in the field of
psychology that would give us guidance on the matter, and maybe we
already have. I don't know, that's not my field.


>>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.

You will not grant my premise to me. You are remaining in a place where the
thing was negative when it was committed. Abuse is abuse is abuse.
We seem to be in a place where I am saying "I can imagine that . . ."
and you are saying "I cannot imagine that . . ."
- well, okay. You need to say that for a child to have sex with an adult
is unfailingly a psychic violation of the child. I say this depends upon
the adult's intention and the child's perception of the emotional content.
You seem to say an adult cannot stand in reference to a child without it
being a negative intentional act or that the child cannot perceive it as
being other than a hurtful thing or hurtfully intended. I don't agree,
in principle; I am surely not talking about USA in 1992, society as a
whole. We'll have to agree to disagree.

>>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.

If sex is educational - a learning experience? There would be "tiers",
and children will prefer to play with their peers. But I see no reason
to assume that things would not cross strata, either. I would say that
you are right about the majority of contact.

>
>>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.

What exactly is a consequence? We are emotional beings. Our attraction to
each other is sexual and affectional. You wouldn't suggest that a 12-year
old wouldn't know whther they enjoyed an experience or not? It would be
our job to address issues around responsibility, but it's like driving a
car. You don't toss the kid the keys to the car and say, go learn. These
things occur in steps. You don't invest the act with the full weight of
consequence to begin with - pregnancy, the major one.
Around emotions, again, the child has the sense of what it wants and what
it can handle; and its parents will also have some idea about how accurate
the child's judgement is, some children are eager and would seek experiences
in advance of when they could handle them, some would not seek them until
later. The entire idea is to allow the children freedom as they are able
to handle responsibility, just as with so many other things.

Kind of the summary to all this is: whose decision would it be to begin
with? Currently we give the initiative to the parents; we hope they are
wise enough to foster their children's growth. As integral creatures,
though (and this is MY belief) we innately know THAT we want and WHEN we
want it - and I suggest we give the initiative to the child, with the
adult observing this occur and guiding the child toward that which they
seek. Trust the wisdom of the body - if not ultimately, certainly much
more than we do.
The society I'm talking about does not require EVER to dispose of age-
barrier laws, and I have no interest (believe it or not) in addressing
that issue as being of any great importance. The image of the society is
what I am advocating.

-ecsd
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5894 alt.politics.usa.constitution:241