Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.feminism,alt.fan.camille-paglia
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!news
From: jmkinnib@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Ghostboy)
Subject: Re: Lesbian feminists?  (was: same old)
Message-ID: <31b9edf9.8826298@news.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: cnts3p14.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
References: <DrznpK.GC1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4ogl1a$t3k@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <hatunenDs6876.53F@netcom.com> <4oj2j5$nqv@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ojivc$lf1@agate.berkeley.edu> <sprague.25-3105190214390001@ts24-9.homenet.ohio-state.edu> <4p98ra$isp@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <31b8db38.246798056@news.uwaterloo.ca> <4pb6c3$lva@usenet7.interramp.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 21:26:21 GMT
Lines: 62
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:178545 sci.lang:55408

On 8 Jun 1996 06:25:07 GMT, us010739@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith)
annoyed the censors with:

<snip>
>>If for instance, 
>>
>>there can be:
>>
>>Heterosexual love and Heterosexual rape
>>and 
>>Homosexual love and Homosexual rape
>>
>>(love meaning a loving sexual relationship)
>>
>>then why is it so ludicrous to point out that it is possible for
>>adult/child love 
>>as well as 
>>adult/child rape.
>>
>>Personally I find the whole idea of adults having sex with children
>>rather repugnant, but I also have a similar distaste for sex between
>>males. I also hate broccoli.
>>
>>just some thoughts.
>>
>
>Okay, I've never understood why anyone sees this as a puzzling question. 
>Isn't the point -- consent?  

No, it is specifically not a question of consent.
With adults consent is an issue.
Since children are not able to consent, a legal thing, it is left to
their parents or guardians---state to decide what is 'good' for them.
They give consent for the child in other words.

>With love, both consent.  With rape, one 
>doesn't.  With children, we do not consider them capable yet of real 
>consent (statutory rape, for example).  

saying that someone is not capable of consent does not mean we cant
engage them in any way. 
We make children eat their vegetables and go to school, all without
the same consent.
We do this because we have decided that these are 'good' things for
the child, not because of any 'consent' issues.

>With gay sex there is no one 
>involved who is not capable of real consent (leaving aside the whole 
>man/boy thing, of course)

I think the point has to be made that 'not giving consent' and 'not
being able to give consent' are different.

> -- what possible business is it of anyone but 
>them?
>
You would support a persons right to mutilate themselves or commit
suicide then?

Personally, I could care less what 'gays' do in there bedroom, that
was not my point.
Ghostboy --- A non-practicing Atheist
