From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:13:49 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA


  I too, fortuitously, saw this program.

In article <13147@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> A number of the molesters interviewed described their long
> careers -- with hundreds of victims.  While it would be foolish
> to attach any statistical significance to the interviewed
> molesters, at least a third of those interviewed were primarily
> or only interested in little boys -- they were clearly interested
> in molesting one sex only, and were not limited to pre-pubescent
> victims, either.

  You are correct. There is no statistical significance to this
sample. Besides, I only recall only one molestor on the show who
was primarily interested in the same sex: Wesley Dodd. Not once in
the show did they make any mention that Wesley had any adult
relations with *either* sex. The clear implication is that he
in fact didn't have any -- ever.
  This, of course, is right in line with the hypothesis that Kane,
et. al. have been trying to make: molestation is an issue of
violence, power, and control; not sexual gratification or orientation.
The Joel character is *exactly* in line with this characterization.

> In any case, it demonstrates that the authorities, at least in
> Washington, have not historically regarded homosexual child
> molestation as a particularly serious crime at all.  This suggests
> that the supposed preferential treatment for heterosexual
> child molesters is nonsense.  It's hard to see how any lighter
> "punishment" could have been awarded than was given to some of
> these scum -- many of whom were interviewed in preparation for
> release from prison, and who admitted that they hadn't gotten
> past their desire for children.

  Indeed, this is very shocking. How do you feel about the legislature's
"sexual predator" law? These folks are despicable, no doubt, but
imprisoning someone on the actions they *might* one day perform
stinks to high heaven of prior restraint, and seems *very* 
unconstitutional and *very* dangerous. The screwup with respect to
sentancing these guy to life in jail is the state's screwup. Passing
draconian laws which rob people of thier civil liberties is a bad way 
to make amends though...

> The next time someone insists that the gay community can't
> exclude NAMBLA from gay parades because it's a "free speech"
> issue, remember who the gay community is implicitly saying are
> OK people to associate with.

  Where on earth does *this* follow??? Your precious heterosexual
world is putting lunes on the street TODAY, and you have the
audacity to claim that the gay community is somehow more responsible
since ONE gay day parade in the US allows NAMBLA to march as an
issue of free speech? 
  God, what a warped sense of priorities. No wonder these scumbags
walk the streets: you're all to busy trying to blame it on the
queers to clean up your own damn backyard.
  Fuck off Clayton. Put your own house in order.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc