From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 24 Jan 93 09:08:37 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.174346.4717@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <13954@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan16.052356.28532@Princeton.EDU>, (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>> >In <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
>>some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  
>
>I would disagree with this claim alomst certainly. You offer no
>reason why you assert this. SO, I refute simply in the way that
>you do. A 17 year old is not an adult, contrary to your claim.
>I tend to side with the law, and not you, on this one.
---------------------------------
In most states, a 17 year old can consent to sex with older people, whether
by absolute statute or the failure to enforce universally. And in the
entire nation of Canada, the age of sexual consent is 14! Pederasty is much
bandied about lately in the place of real knowledge of its definition.
Pederasty is limited to acts against pre-pubescent children, technically.
Pederasts are typically people who cannot have normal relations with older
people of either sex. They are usually unaroused by sexually capable
persons of either sex beyond puberty. In other words, most states and many
of the most industrialized modern countries hold almost anyone who is
sexually active by choice as capable of choosing legally. It is not
absolute adulthood, but then we have sixteen year olds driving two ton
vehicles at 60 mph, horrors!
- Steve 

>>># Child molestation means molesting people too young to consent.  But what
>>># that age is is NOT intrinsic to people.  It's being arbitrarily defined
>>># by *YOU* to be 18 years of age.  Amazingly enough, all over the world
>>># it's defined differently.  
>>
>>>Mr. Brack, NAMBLA, and many other homosexuals insist that there should
>>>be NO line.  Clear enough?  That's NOT the same thing, and you know
>>>it.  (Or should.)
---------------------------
I would say that as long as the child is fully aware of a his or her legal
right to refuse without any prejudicial treatment against them, both by
potential sex partners and by their parents, that there shouldn't be a
line. Many cultures would find a line as strange and arbitrary and
unnatural. Abuse can only occur anyway if the child is subjected to the
imminent contraction of a sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy, and
last I looked, we haven't bothered to try to chase down the fathers of
pregnant teens. This is why sex education and the availability of birth
control and abortion as a last step must be available to teens; because no
matter what the laws say, teens are going to have sex. They always have,
and they always will. Making laws against it are like trying to change the
value of pi for simplicity's sake!
-Steve

>>But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
>>"anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.
--------------------------------
Anyone has already had sex with anyone. It's a known fact. And they're
going to keep doing it. We don't have enough jails and you won't want to
pay for them. Get used to the idea. There is such a thing as normal human
behavior that is not always legal, but it's what we are. It should be the
least of or worries after we cover certain bases in entitlements to birth
control and abortion. There are kids out there killing people for pocket
change daily! Let's see the law take things from the worst on down for a
change, instead of trying to legislate their phony religions.
- Steve

>This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
>from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
>to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
>to be preyed upon. I suppose that you also favour the removal
>of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
>of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
>level of pay?
-----------------------------
If you didn't realize it, they work from that age up now for shit wages if
they work less than a certain number of hours and they are only temporary
help. All they get is disability. They don't make enough to get
unemployment even! We need better people labour laws. This problem also
occurs to seniors!
-Steve

>One of the roles of the government is to protect the helpless.
>and few would argue that children are not in this group.
-----------------------
But protect them from what is the question. I would much sooner protect
them from unfairly low wages than from the enjoyment of sex that they
consent to.
------
- Steve Walz

>David Leung-tak

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *