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!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!nntp.coast.net!torn!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!news
From: jmkinnib@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Ghostboy)
Subject: Re: Lesbian feminists?  (was: same old)
Message-ID: <31b8db38.246798056@news.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: cnts4p09.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>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 01:52:26 GMT
Lines: 67
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:178309 sci.lang:55381

On 7 Jun 1996 12:55:06 GMT, "T.A.Saward" <TA3519@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk>
annoyed the censors with:

>sprague.25@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Glenn Sprague) wrote:
>>In article <4ojivc$lf1@agate.berkeley.edu>, porco@stat.Berkeley.EDU
>>(Travis C. Porco) wrote:
>>
>
>>> >I'm really disturbed by the support that Paglia, Bright, and Califia
>>> >have shown for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 
>>> ...
>>> >Seriously, how NAMBLA is at all relevant to gay rights is beyond me.
>>> >I mean, uh, aren't they pedophiles?
>>> 
>>> I think Paglia's point is that the idea that children are
>>> sexless is not universal.  In some places and times, it is not
>>> that odd for girls to marry at age 14.  We all know about some
>>> of the ancient Greek customs regarding pederasty.  
>>> It is not that I agree with Camille Paglia, but that
>>> she has thought about what she says and defends it with
>>> arguments and examples.
>>> 
>>> ...I am sorry ,but anyone who would even suggest that a pro-pedophile is
>>a feminist needs to get in touch with what feminism is about. How could
>>ypu even begin to defend somene who advocates the decay of our society?
>>> 
>
>It's interesting, I think, that both Paglia and Califia have been vocal 
>in their defence of man-boy love.
>
>The two women occupy very different positions in the feminist debate, but 
>both are angry at the hypocrisy surrounding this issue.
>
>It is only the fervently anti-sex feminists and the political gays who 
>are incapable of reasoned debate on this issue (cf the comment above).
>
>Pedophilia, girl-love or boy-love are not irreconcilable with a feminist 
>stance (read Tom O'Carroll). Neither should they be excluded from the Gay 
>debate. "Why isn't man-boy love a gay issue? It's certainly not a 
>heterosexual one" - Califia.
>
Excuse me for jumping in, but I think the idea that 'Gay' sex is
acceptable inevitably leads to the question of what else can then be
said to be acceptable.

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.


