NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/polyamor/2452

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!ebrooks
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Adult women seducing male children
From: [e-mail] (Eben Rosenberger)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:42:40 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA
Lines: 61

[e-mail] (Gerard Deckert) writes:

>      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 agree with you that children should be made aware of their sexual
nature as early as possible--however, I agree with Hawaii in their
treatment of the "statutory rape" laws on their books.  It's a sliding
scale.  If two 12-year-olds have sex, that's okay.  But if it's a
12-year-old and a 17-year-old, that's not.  If a 22-year-old and a
17-year old have sex, that's fine, but if it's a 32-year-old and a
17-year-old, that's not.  My only complaint is that it doesn't extend or
apply to those older than 18, so that if it's a 44-year-old with an
18-year-old, it's fine.

There are two facts to consider here: one is that, especially with
children, the potential for advantage-taking is FAR too great.  Everyone
knows that a child sees all adults as authority figures, and for the
possibility of sexual relations to be opened up between adults and
children to work, that authority base MUST NOT EXIST.  So we have a
fundamental incompatibility.  This applies to any situation where ages
are far apart, whether one member of the couple is a legal "adult" or
not--or even if both of them are.  The older person is in a position to
take advantage of the younger person--and in 98 cases out of 100 (where
such advantage-taking occurs), the younger person will LET IT HAPPEN,
because they will see the older person as more experienced and therefore
allowed to take some liberties that the younger person cannot take.

The second fact to consider is this: If a law can be twisted, corrupted,
gotten around, ignored, misinterpreted, or otherwise mangled by those who
"follow" it, this WILL occur.  So we cannot have laws based solely on
"mutual consent," especially in the case of children.  I firmly believe
that if, to protect the majority of people, we have to restrict a
minority of people, then LET THAT MINORITY BE RESTRICTED!--especially
when it comes to sexual hoo-hah.  In other cases, for other laws, we can
bend a little, but when it comes to the potential exploitation of our
children and adolescents, I, personally, would not budge an inch.

Thank you for your time, we return now to your regularly scheduled
flamewar.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Eben Rosenberger)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!ebrooks
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]