NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/58467

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 5.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Pedophilia as sexual orientation
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:06:15 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 110
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <5119570126011993/A05698/OUTLAW/1171D0681500*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


[e-mail] (Roy Radow) writes:

>[e-mail] (LASAGA) writes:

(Mark Wasson) writes this:
>>There is a discussion on our company's local net concerning pedophilia as
>>one type of sexual orientation.  Although the thread did start with
>>someone mentioning homosexuals and pedophilia in the same sentence, the
>>two have now been separated in the discussion.

>Not that many years ago Anita Bryant held a successful campaign
>to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights. She called her cause
>"Save Our Children". Her argument was, that since homosexuals were
>unable to procreate, the only way to perpetuate their kind was to
>recruit children to become gay or lesbian. Ignorant, bigoted and
>prejudice people believed her, and many good people suffered as a
>result.

>Today Anita Bryant's accusations are considered ridiculous, and
>we find it difficult to conceive how anyone could believe such
>nonsense.

Uh, Roy, I beg to differ with you on this point.  Arguments similar
to hers re-surfaced in Colorado just this past year, though I agree
with you that it is difficult to conceive how anyone can believe them.

>It is illegal to sexually abuse children and people who commit illegal
>acts should have to face the consequences of their behavior.

>This should not be a justification, however, for denying civil rights
>to others who have committed no such crimes no matter what their sexual
>orientation.

Agreed.

>>And, of course, even if many gay people _did_ commit pedophilia, it
>>would not mean that those who do not should be discriminated against
>>(e.g., could not find employment in our schools);  we just need a better
>>way to determine whether anyone is a pedophile, gay or straight.


>LET"S GET THIS STRAIGHT:

>Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.   Sexual abuse is an illegal assault.

>1) The people described in the journal article committed sexual abuse,
>   they did not "commit pedophilia".

Chill out, Roy, and get with the program.  You don't need to flagellate
people because they didn't type the exact wording (or spelling) that you
think they should have.  Point it out nicely, if they claim they meant
what they wrote, then respond strongly if you need to do so.  That said,
my statement should read, "commit acts of pedophilia."

>3) We do not need "a better way to determine whether anyone is a pedophile,
>   gay or straight". What we do need is less hysteria, so that people will
>   not fear or pre-judge others just because they may be different.

Well, here I need to disagree. If I understand you correctly, you are
saying that we shouldn't even be determining whether someone is
a pedophile because that would be discriminating based on status.

However, pedophilia "involves the desire for sexual gratification
from another nonconsenting human being, ...[but unlike paraphilias
like voyeurism] that human being is a child.  Because of this,
pedophilia is considered a much more serious crime than exhibitionism
and voyeurism" (Sarason & Sarason, _Abnormal Psychology_, NJ:  Englewood
Cliffs, 1989, p. 233; the the leading textbook in its area).

Now, I think that you would want to argue that pedophilia itself is
not a crime, but acts of pedophilia are.  OK.  I can agree with you on
that.  BUT, if someone has been shown to be prone to molest children in
the past, I think it is fair to say that he or she (though molestors are
predominatly male) should not seek (be given) a job that involves being
around children.  Just as someone who is an alcoholic is not a
criminal, but I would not want a recovering (or even "recovered")
alcoholic driving my bus.  Why?  There is indeed a good likelihood
that said person will find it difficult to control their alcoholic
intake in the future, _not_ because of their group affiliation, but
because of their _own_ past experiences (ie., inabilities to control
their alcoholic intake).  If I have been terrible at balancing my
checkbook, would you want me to be your company's bookkeeper?
Even if I promised that I would try to be a good one?  I would
think not.

My reaction to pedophilia has nothing to do with "hysteria" or
any intolerance of "differences."  If you want to engage in S&M with a
consenting adult, then by all means, do it. (Heck, I would even go so
far as to say, if you want to murder a consenting adult, then by all
means do it...  Although since that act is completely irreversible,
I would suggest that you and the consenting adult be sure of what you
are going to do.)

However, if you want to engage in sex with a minor who doesn't know enough
or hasn't the power to say "no," then I have to say that you should NOT
do it.

On the other hand, if you fantasize about sex with children but
have never molested one or would want to molest one, then I say, enjoy
your fantasies, just don't act on them.

It has to do with mutual consent.  That is the crux of the problem
here.  And I think you agree because you said that "it is illegal to
sexually abuse children and people who commit illegal acts should
have to face the consequences of their behavior."

-maria