Conference back40::soapbox

    I think it's hypocritical for somebody to proclaim to be libertarian in
    the areas of sexual issues and yet be against NAMBLA and other sicko
    groups.
    
    

    
    
    I think you're FOS, Jack.  
    
    
    hth,
    
    Mike

    For the sake of definition, the notion conveyed in the basenote that
    sex between adults and minors might be "consensual" is not recognized
    in law, minors not having the legal power to consent to sex.  I think
    this law is correct- for reasons of power imbalances in relationships
    between adults and minors.  
    
    I thank the basenoter for starting a topic for general cases of
    pedophilia.  Priestly pedophilia cases (including abuse by religious
    authorities of any denomination) will continue to be entered in topic
    89, at least by me.
    
    DougO

    
    Toronto's Ryerson Polytechnical University has launched an investigation
    into the conduct of a journalism professor who has written essays that
    are sympathetic to pedophiles.
    
    Professor Gerald Hannon, 51, has called for the legalization of adult
    sexual relationships with children, arguing that they're not all
    abusive.  University officials are investigating allegations that the
    professor has used the classroom as a platform to promulgate his views.
    
    In 1977, Hannon wrote "Men Loving Boys Loving Men", an article for 
    `The Body Politic', Canada's first gay periodical.
    
    Hannon, a part-time professor who teaches a freelance magazine writing
    class, called the investigation "an insult and contemptible."  He said
    "I'll do whatever it takes to stop such an investigation; it's creepy."
    
    Don Obe, acting dean of journalism, said the faculty has not received
    a single student complaint about Hannon's classroom conduct.
                      

	How much do you wanna bet that covert still uses the other topic?

    
    Well, nice foot to start out on there Jack. Make sure you accuse
    your opponents of hypocrisy in the first part of the sentence,
    before you even let us know what we're being hypocritical about.
    You're big on this opening salvo stuff, aren't you?

    While I'm sure someone will be inclined to argue an "opposing
    viewpoint", I'm not. Your premise is silly, and as Bertrand
    Russel would point out, thereby impervious to logic.

    The only defense then is to make an equally asinine statement:

    "I think it's hypocritical for somebody to sell their house for
    as much money as they can get and then expect to buy a house for
    as little money as possible."

    -b

    
    .3

    >For the sake of definition, the notion conveyed in the basenote that
    >sex between adults and minors might be "consensual" is not recognized
    >in law, minors not having the legal power to consent to sex.
    
    For the sake of clarification: I do not believe that "consent" is a
    valid defence to a charge of pedophilia; rather, I intended to convey
    the fact that certain protaganists in this issue believe that "consent"
    is relevant to the discussion.
      

>    For the sake of definition, the notion conveyed in the basenote that
>    sex between adults and minors might be "consensual" is not recognized
>    in law, minors not having the legal power to consent to sex.  I think
>    this law is correct- for reasons of power imbalances in relationships
>    between adults and minors.  

Doesn't the age of consent vary from state to state?  If it's 16 in one
state and 18 in another, how can they both be correct?

Is "consensual" sex between 12-year-olds OK?

Is "consensual" sex between adults with "power imbalances" OK?

    
    In Canada (I will look this up later and correct it if necessary) I
    believe the age of consent is 14, provided the two parties are no more
    than two years apart in age, and 16 otherwise (except for anal sex,
    which is 18).
    

    > In Canada (I will look this up later and correct it if necessary) I
    > believe the age of consent is 14, provided the two parties are no more
    > than two years apart in age, and 16 otherwise (except for anal sex,
    > which is 18).
    
    Seems like a pretty complex if-then-else structure to me. "If
    I'm this age, and you're that age, I can stick it here, but
    I can't stick it there..."
    
    -b

    re .8-
    
    The fact that thorny boundary issues arise does not change my opinion
    that the law should in fact recognize definate power imbalances between
    adults and minors, however defined, and refuse to grant minors the
    powers of consent.  Focussing on the boundary issues is nitpicking.
    
    Regarding adults with power-imbalanced relationships, the law chooses
    to err on the side of non-interference; I think this is also
    appropriate, for otherwise the principle that an adult is responsible
    for their contract and their bond is abrogated, very dangerously.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Well, actually it's not too bad....
    
     This way, all you have to do is carry a check-list when you hit on some
    little kid at the playground...
    

    
    .10, Bri:
    
    Well, there is ONE advantage (over, say, the U.S.): you do not have to 
    stop and check to see which province you happen to be in at the moment 
    to decide if you're legal or not; the law is federal.
    
    Also (incidentally), the section of the Criminal Code dealing with
    anal sex is under legal challenge at the moment, the argument being
    that the age of consent should be lowered to 16 (the same age as for
    vaginal sex).
    

    What about nasal sex?
    
    People still look down their noses at it.

    
      Well, I've read the replies, including DougO's, and frankly, if
     you step back from your strong feelings and examine them, you see
     that they haven't got a logical leg to stand on.
    
      If society has no right to moral standards for its members, this
     is no different.  It's DougO who's the nit-picker.  Of course, I
     reject the sophomoric libertarians and (most) all their works, so
     perhaps I'm blind to some obvious distinction.  But I doubt it.
     
      No, the only difference for pedophiles is the level of repugnance.
     In time, with properly "sensitive" liberal tv programs and rock
     lyrics backing them up, there will be a congressional pedophilia
     caucus, composed of Democrats.  Just a matter of time.
    
      bb

    whoops.

    
    .15
 
      >No, the only difference for pedophiles is the level of repugnance.
    
    Emotionally, perhaps.  Intellectually, I'd say the difference is the
    level of competence.  There are many things we do not allow kids to 
    do, such as work, vote, or serve in the military.  The reasoning is
    that kids aren't yet intellectually or emotionally competent to make
    these decisions for themselves.
    
    I believe the same principle applies here.
    

	What does a moral leg look like?

>         kids aren't yet intellectually or emotionally competent to make
>    these decisions for themselves.

A 14-year-old isn't competent to decide to have sex with a 17-year-old,
but _is_ competent to decide to have sex with a 16-year-old?  That makes
no sense to me.

    >they haven't got a logical leg to stand on.
    >
    >If society has no right to moral standards for its members, this
    >    is no different.
    
    Where does that argument come from?  It is insufficiently nuanced.
    
    DougO

    
    .20
    
    "Power" also comes into play.  That's why a 14-year-old can be 
    considered less vulnerable to a 16-year-old than to a 21-year-old.
    
    The line has to get drawn *somewhere*, doesn't it?
    

    >Where does that argument come from?  It is insufficiently nuanced.
    
     Insufficiently nuanced? What are you trying to say? Insufficiently
    allusive?

    	Nuances and degrees of difference, etc., wouldn't matter if
    	sex for juveniles were seen as wrong.  Period.
    
    	Let them become physically and emotionally mature enough to
    	deal with it before casting them into this dangerous sea.

    
      Look, DougO, if you take libertarianism to its Tom Ralston-esque
     extreme, "society" has little right to do anything about anything.
     "Nature" and "the market" will make everything come out right.  Now
     I know you don't go that far with it - you think, at least, that
     society through government can legitimately regulate or suppress private
     force.  The trouble is, this is not a clear line, and certainly not
     when it comes to sexual relations.  You're on dead reckoning, but
     you're trying to cross the Atlantic without a compass.
    
      Then there are those of us who claim to have a compass, one you see
     as a false instrument.  But forget that for a moment, and try seeing
     the USA today from our perspective.  The society long ago cast over
     all restraint, from our point-of-view, both in theory and in practice.
     We have a hard time channel-surfing or frequency-scanning without
     coming upon repulsive material, and equally repulsive assaults on the
     mind.  The society has lost all shame - seen daytime tv lately ?
    
      No, I'm with Lieberman and Bill Bennett (the Book of Virtues).  There
     is nothing wrong with expressing your disgust at repulsive behavior,
     protecting society from it any way we can, confronting those who are
     making big bucks out of collapsing our culture, changing the channel,
     and exhortation to embrace moral standards.
    
      We have a right and a duty to moral bigotry of this type.  I'm not
     ashamed of it at all.  For us, pedophilia is just another part of
     so-called free love, of promiscuity, of inappropriate sexuality.
    
      Which is why I see the distinction you are making as a nit.
    
      bb 

    .25
    
    > We have a hard time channel-surfing or frequency-scanning without
    > coming upon repulsive material, and equally repulsive assaults on the
    > mind.
    
    Of course, "we" could simply *ignore* that repulsive material,
    recognizing that in a free society "we" have no right, God-given or
    otherwise, to deny to others what "we" ourselves don't want.  If "we"
    bring up "our" children as they should be brought up, according to
    "our" lights, they too will learn to ignore the repulsive material. 
    Problem solved.
    
    > I'm with ... and Bill Bennett (the Book of Virtues).
    
    You mean the book that, if read with perception, is little more than a
    long-winded prescription for the idyllic (HAH!) life of decades past,
    when little children knew their place and Daddy brought home the bacon
    while Mother ran the house?  Give us a break.

    
    .25
    
     >Then there are those of us who claim to have a compass, one you see
     >as a false instrument.
    
    Since you appear to see the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia as
    inseparable, I would remind you that this compass doesn't seem to read
    the same for all members of your flock.  Dick Binder (as opposed to,
    say, Joe Oppelt) is a perfect example.
    

    
    re: .22
    
    >"Power" also comes into play.  That's why a 14-year-old can be
    >considered less vulnerable to a 16-year-old than to a 21-year-old.
    
    >The line has to get drawn *somewhere*, doesn't it?
    
    John,
    
     Why? If you have a "line", then at some point in time, any
    "power-broker" can try and change the location of that line on a
    whim (or because of bleating from a vocal/radical minority)...

    
    Yes, Andy, of course.  Why?  Are you, too, determined to see the issues
    of homosexuality and pedophilia in the same light?  If not, what's your
    point?
    

    re: .26
    
    >Of course, "we" could simply *ignore* that repulsive material,
    >recognizing that in a free society "we" have no right, God-given or
    >otherwise, to deny to others what "we" ourselves don't want.  If "we"
    >bring up "our" children as they should be brought up, according to
    >"our" lights, they too will learn to ignore the repulsive material. 
    >Problem solved.
   
    
    Really Dick?? Pick any number of TV commercials, randomly, between the
    time kids get home from school and "prime-time".. add the weekends.
    
     Who is the billion dollar ad industry gearing towards and why, if
    we've trained them properly, should they even bother??
    
     How is "repulsive material" usually brought to these youngsters???
    Blatantly as we know it?? Or in sheep's clothing to start and then set
    the hook later?
    
     Have you seen/heard how kids are being drawn into Cyber-Smut these
    days???
    

    > Have you seen/heard how kids are being drawn into Cyber-Smut these
    >days???
    
     Yeah, if they spent more time naked with others their own age they
    wouldn't be titillated by Cyber-Smut. :-)

    I hope Bennett's "The Book of Virtues" is a good book; I have just
    asked the local library to hold a copy for me.
    
    - Stephen

    
    >Are you, too, determined to see the issues of homosexuality and
    >pedophilia in the same light?
    
     No.. I didn't say that, nor did I mean that. I do believe they are
    inter-twined. Irrevocably? I don't think so, but tied they are... no
    matter how hard you (generic) try to believe otherwise...
    
     My point?  I don't like lines... any lines!!! Call me old-fashioned
    and neanderthal, but I prefer a brick wall...
    

    > My point?  I don't like lines... any lines!!! Call me old-fashioned
    >and neanderthal, but I prefer a brick wall...
    
     Meaning what as regards sexuality?

 re .25 bb


 <applause>

           <<< Note 584.27 by TROOA::COLLINS "Go, Subway Elvis!!" >>>

>    Since you appear to see the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia as
>    inseparable, I would remind you that this compass doesn't seem to read
>    the same for all members of your flock.  Dick Binder (as opposed to,
>    say, Joe Oppelt) is a perfect example.
    
    	You must be saying that Dick sees them as inseparable, then,
    	for I know they are separable.  The only connection to the
    	two actions in my way of thinking is their immorality.  I
    	believe I know what you were trying to say, and I think you
    	are terribly mistaken.

    
    > Meaning what as regards sexuality?
    
    Whose?? An adult's or a child's??
    
     Never mind... we all have our different views on when a person is an
    "adult" or capable of this or that... Or mature enought to handle this
    or that and/or so and so...
    
     My brick wall is my own...
    

    .30
    
    >> Of course, "we" could simply *ignore* that repulsive material...
    
    > Really Dick?? Pick any number of TV commercials, randomly, between the
    > time kids get home from school and "prime-time".. add the weekends.
    
    Andy, I suggest that you must have a defective TV.  Every one I've ever
    bought has had a small device called a "power switch" on it. When
    placed in the "off" position, this amazing little gadget prevents any
    and all TV shows and commercials from appearing on the instrument's
    screen.
    
    > Have you seen/heard how kids are being drawn into Cyber-Smut these
    > days???
    
    Yes.  But then that's not a problem if the kids have been taught from
    their earliest years the truths about sex and morality, and about how
    to avoid being molested by strangers.  Andy, it is not MY fault, or
    anyone's except your own, if you fail to teach your kids not to talk to
    strangers or go anywhere with them.  And don't whine about how kids
    don't always listen.  My kids were as recalcitrant as any I know about
    taking their parents' word on faith; highly intelligent kids usually do
    have to have logical reasons for buying what they're told.  But they
    also recognized the bald truth of the facts presented, and they
    learned.

>    Really Dick?? Pick any number of TV commercials, randomly, between the
>    time kids get home from school and "prime-time".. add the weekends.

Have you considered getting rid of your TV?

    >Insufficiently nuanced? What are you trying to say?
    
    I'm saying that his premise that "society has no right to moral
    standards for its members" is a strawman, used as he did.  He
    has more recently clarified it, and I'll address that in my next
    message.
    
    DougO

    While flying on Malaysia Airlines recently, I ran across an article on
    the rebels of Sri Lanka.  It seems that their biggest source of
    recruits are the young boys/men of southern Sri Lanka, who over the
    years, have been abused by pedophiles from Europe.  It seems that Sri
    Lanka is the vacation spot of choice for European pedophiles.  The
    rebel group is made up mostly of the minority ethnic group (Temils ?)
    on the island.  The majority ethnic group has allowed the European
    pedophiles to abuse the young Temils for years since the Europeans come
    and spend money.  This has caused deep resentment amoung the Temils and
    thus a great source of young rebels for their cause.
    
    It was a very interesting article and seemed to be well documented.  It
    is interesting that of all the news I have read and seen in the U.S.
    over the years about the conflict in Sri Lanka, I have never seen
    anything about this.  Makes you wonder.

Tamils.  NNTTM.

    
    .36
    
    	>The only connection to the
    	>two actions in my way of thinking is their immorality.
    
    This would pretty much illustrate what I was saying.  Dick doesn't
    have a problem with the actions of consenting adults in sexual
    matters.  You do.
    
    Yet you both, apparently, are supposed to be guided by the same
    compass.
    
    What gives, Joe?
    

    
    re: .38, .39
    
    Go ahead.. show your prowess...
    
    It has nothing to do with *MY* television... yes, I could shut my TV
    off and or junk it. 
    
    Will you both tell that to the thousands and thousands of socially and
    emotionally immature latch-key kids out there in the real world the
    same thing??  Kids that come home to the latest "ad-man's" treats??
    
     Or maybe they can learn all about the real world from Oprah and
    Geraldo and Sally-Jesse-Billy-Ray-Bob?
    
    *YOU* Dick, may be exceptional and/or the exception to the rule... re:
    raising your kids the way you did. I happen to think I did a pretty
    good job of it with my two children...
    
     Is the vast majority of folks out there in America-Land as emotionally
    and socially well adjusted and/or mature as you (and Gerald)???
    

    .44
    
    Andy, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you're responsible
    for only your own children.  You can't make parents of latchkey kids
    clean up their mess, and you have NO RIGHT WHATEVER to stick your
    repressive/repressed morality into my affairs or the affairs of ANY
    other parents in this country.
    
    It is an unfortunate fact of life that each individual has to live it
    for himself or herself.  No vicarious morality is allowed - or
    possible - except by force.  If you have a problem with this, I suggest
    you take your problem and move to Cuba, where you and Fidel can have a
    good time telling everyone else what to do.

>                                 You can't make parents of latchkey kids
>    clean up their mess, and you have NO RIGHT WHATEVER to stick your
>    repressive/repressed morality into my affairs or the affairs of ANY
>    other parents in this country.

So you think that if your next door neighbor habitually beats his kids,
you should butt out, right?

    that's the problem with categoric statements...

    
    re: .45
    
    Sigh.... 
    
    Dick... what didn't you understand about me saying it was "my wall"????
    
    I was expressing my opinion on the subject... where in heaven's name
    are you getting the idea of me proferring the notion that "and you have 
    NO RIGHT WHATEVER to stick your repressive/repressed morality into my 
    affairs..."
    
      Are you being bitchy today too???
    

     re .25-
    
     > Look, DougO, if you take libertarianism to its Tom Ralston-esque
     > extreme, "society" has little right to do anything about anything.
     > "Nature" and "the market" will make everything come out right.  

     Right, this is why I didn't accept your premise.  This is extreme.
     Nature and the market will make everything come out, but how 'right'
     they'll be is, in current parlance, subject to market failures.
     Those exist, and for the sake of social stability, a regulatory
     framework is thus a natural function of government.

     > Now I know you don't go that far with it - you think, at least, that
     > society through government can legitimately regulate or suppress private
     > force.  The trouble is, this is not a clear line, and certainly not
     > when it comes to sexual relations.  

     True.  Its quite difficult.  One can certainly derive some obvious
     consistencies from market requirements, though.  For example, the
     right to property and the responsibility to manage or lose it in as 
     fair a marketplace can be arranged must be seen as absolutes - justified
     both by the rights of all to freedom and the benefits to society of 
     efficiently functioning markets.  From that, one derives the adult's
     rights and responsibilities to manage their own affairs, private as well
     as economic.  But minors have never been recognized as having such 
     powers to enter contracts, and the social argument extended to adults
     via economic freedom thus doesn't apply.

     > You're on dead reckoning, but you're trying to cross the Atlantic 
     > without a compass.
    
     Bad analogy.  Dead reckoning when you derive from market principles
     is vaguely apropos, but the gulf between adults and minors is much
     easier to navigate and treat differently than the Atlantic w/o a
     compass.  The situation is quite similar - full freedom is not extended
     to minors in matters contractual, so why should they be in matters of
     sex?

     > Then there are those of us who claim to have a compass, one you see
     > as a false instrument.  

     That, sir, is a fair analogy. ;-)

     > But forget that for a moment, and try seeing the USA today from our 
     > perspective.  The society long ago cast over all restraint, from our 
     > point-of-view, both in theory and in practice.

     All restraint?  Fraud, murder, incest are legal?  You cry wolf.

     > We have a hard time channel-surfing or frequency-scanning without
     > coming upon repulsive material, and equally repulsive assaults on the
     > mind.  The society has lost all shame - seen daytime tv lately ?

     Amusements for the masses.  Such have always been anathema to those
     of refined tastes.  The argument fails.

     > No, I'm with Lieberman and Bill Bennett (the Book of Virtues).  There
     > is nothing wrong with expressing your disgust at repulsive behavior,
     > protecting society from it any way we can, confronting those who are
     > making big bucks out of collapsing our culture, changing the channel,
     > and exhortation to embrace moral standards.

     Your zeal betrays your principles.  "protecting society from it any way 
     we can" is the cry of the mob, the anti-republican democrat at his worst.
     Shall you repeal the First Amendment that permits the licentiousness to
     which you object?  Oppose it in the marketplace, oppose it in the pulpit,
     but don't you dare oppose it in the legislature - or your principled
     stand is revealed as a sham.

     > We have a right and a duty to moral bigotry of this type.  I'm not
     > ashamed of it at all.  

     To the extent of imposing your morality on another, you thereby
     violate their freedom from your religion, your bigotry.  It is
     a dangerous path you tread - and don't think the hypocrisy won't
     be noticed.  Your moral intolerance will very likely backfire in
     the eyes of a public unwilling to countenance such duplicity, by
     such moral posturing.

     > For us, pedophilia is just another part of so-called free love, 
     > of promiscuity, of inappropriate sexuality.

     So much more logical to see it as an illegal contract between parties
     not empowered to negotiate it.
    
     > Which is why I see the distinction you are making as a nit.
    
     I don't think you truly see the distinction I draw at all.

     DougO

>     All restraint?  Fraud, murder, incest are legal?  You cry wolf.

Have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted for incest (when pedophilia
isn't also involved)?

    > Your zeal betrays your principles.  "protecting society from it any way 
    > we can" is the cry of the mob, the anti-republican democrat at his worst.
    > Shall you repeal the First Amendment that permits the licentiousness to
    > which you object?  Oppose it in the marketplace, oppose it in the pulpit,
    > but don't you dare oppose it in the legislature - or your principled
    > stand is revealed as a sham.
    
     I completely agree, which is why I find your zeal to see the Cornell
    students punished both by statutory means as well as social means to be
    misguided.

    .46
    
    Morality != ethics

    .48
    
    >sob<  You've found me out.  My hair is too tight, and I took it out on
    you.  I'm so sorry.  >sniffle<

re .52:

Explain.

    
    > >sob<  You've found me out.  My hair is too tight, and I took it out on
    > you.  I'm so sorry.  >sniffle<
    
     
    
    There.. there, now... it's okay... I understand... Hmmmmm now where did
    I put that Midol???
    

    Mark, the Cornell students abused the private property of the
    institution, and are subject to its discipline.  This is consistent.
    If they had used some other channel to the internet, the University
    wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
    
    DougO

    >Mark, the Cornell students abused the private property of the
    >institution, and are subject to its discipline.
    
     It is anything but clear that what they did was prohibited by Cornell.
    They passed unpopular ideas among themselves over the campus network.
    That's it. If Cornell can discipline them for that, then they can
    discipline students for holding an anti-war demonstration on school
    property.

    >among themselves
    
    eh?  Who circulated it to the masses?
    
    DougO

    .54
    
    Morality, as I believe it is generally understood here, refers
    essentially to one's behavioral framework in the light of one's
    religion.  Ethics refers generally to one's behavior in temporal terms,
    without calling religion into it.
    
    Example:
    
    I [generically] don't punch you [generically] out.  My choice not to do
    so isn't guided necessarily by my religion, because i may well be an
    atheist.  But I still don't do it, simply because I know it's not the
    right way to treat you.  My fist ends at your nose.  That's ethics.
    
    Letting a neighbor whack on his kid is unethical because it is obvious
    to me that the kid is being damaged and could even be killed.  It's
    also unwise, because I could be charged with contributory negligence. 
    But there need be no moral decision involved.  On the other hand,
    allowing the kid to view pornographic images on the Internet or on TV
    is not obviously damaging the kid.  Ethics says stay out of it.

    
    	I heard a taped recording of an interview with Ted Bundy
    	before he was executed.  Ted stated that pornography was
    	the vehicle the began to bring out his deviant behaviors, and
    	that the more pornography he got his hands on, the worse it
    	needed to be to "excite" him - more violent, more bizarre.
    
    	He was emphatic in his belief that pornography in America
    	needed to be dealt with in order to reduce violent sexual crime.
    
    	My point is this.  Yes, I can shut off my TV, I can screen what
    	my kids watch or hear in my house, and I do.  However, if the
    	junk that's available as "entertainment" out there is turning the
    	kid next door into some sort of sociopath, then I believe it's
    	my right to take a stand against violent, obscene material being
    	passed off every day as hunky-dory.
    
    	Karen
    

    Referring to serial killers for moral guidance is not my style.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Your loss...
    

    
    	Most serial killers aren't stupid, Doug, they're just murdering
    	psychopaths.
    

Dick, are you saying that atheists are intrinsically amoral?

           <<< Note 584.43 by TROOA::COLLINS "Go, Subway Elvis!!" >>>

>    	>The only connection to the
>    	>two actions in my way of thinking is their immorality.
>    
>    This would pretty much illustrate what I was saying. 
    
    	OK, then.  I thought you were suggesting that I claim that
    	only homosexuals can be pedophiles.  Some do support that
    	notion, after all, and my purpose in responding was to
    	distance myself from that.  I agree with your observation.
    
>    Dick doesn't
>    have a problem with the actions of consenting adults in sexual
>    matters.  You do.
>    
>    Yet you both, apparently, are supposed to be guided by the same
>    compass.
    
    	Key here is "supposed".  If not, then the difference is in
    	the way we read our compasses.
    
    	But you are correct.  From what Dick has said elsewhere
    	regarding his faith, I'd say that we ARE supposed to be 
    	guided by the same compass.

    .60
    
    It is your right to take a stand against pornography.
    
    You have the right to boycott its purveyors and to encourage others to
    do so.  You have the right to publish your opinions about it.  But you
    do NOT have the right to deny MY right to enjoy it if I so desire.
    
    Be it known by all and sundry that I would just as soon put a bullet
    between the eyes of anyone distributing pornography as eat dinner.  The
    target practice would be good for me, my aim is getting rusty.  But I,
    at least, realize that my opinion does not actually define what is
    right for everyone else.
    
    In any case, I have been instrumental in the dismissal from America
    Online of three porno purveyors, each of whom sent to me, unsolicited,
    pornographic images.  Such transmission is a direct violation of AOL's
    Terms of Service, to which every user agrees when signing up for an
    account.  As an AOL user, and as an AOL Academy staff member, I want to
    keep AOL a good place to be.

    .64
    
    No.

    
    Well done, Dick. 

    
    re: .66
    
    What a good little doo-bee!!!!
    
     :)
    

    Sex crime a result of moderm day pornography?!?
    
    Bluuuuurgh!
    
    So, what encouraged armies of old to rape entire cities? They saw
    mountains shaped like breasts? They were driven insane by staring at a
    horse's ass for hours while they rode? Somebody said the f-word?

>    Morality, as I believe it is generally understood here, refers
>    essentially to one's behavioral framework in the light of one's
>    religion.

So if one has no religion, why isn't he amoral?

    This willingness to believe what you want to believe, even when 
    promulgated by such a dubious source as a notorious serial killer,
    faintly amuses me - y'all aren't really *that* gullible, are you ? -
    but does precious little to convince me of the strength of the
    argument.  At best, his inability to function within the boundaries of
    society tells us that his mentation is not up to snuff.  And you want
    to follow this beacon of moral thought?  Spare me.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 584.45 by SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur." >>>

>    It is an unfortunate fact of life that each individual has to live it
>    for himself or herself.  No vicarious morality is allowed - or
>    possible - except by force.  
    
    	But, Dick, regarding entertainment media as Andy brought up,
    	sometimes we simply cannot avoid contact with it.  "Shut off
    	your TV," you suggest.  Well, that means that others have
    	forced me out of my freedoms.  But even further, Calvin Klein
    	has his lewd advertisement plastered in bus stations and on
    	subways and billboards.  I can't shut that off.  And I am
    	also forced to shut off my radio, and refrain from reading
    	magazines.
    
    	No, "Shut off the TV" is not a sufficient answer.

.44> and Sally-Jesse-Billy-Ray-Bob
    
Please to leave my sister out of this.

-Jack-Boy-Bob

    
    re: .73
    
    You silly little man...
    
    No one says you have to..."follow this beacon of moral thought"...
    
    Have you never read history and not learned from it??
    

    >	No, "Shut off the TV" is not a sufficient answer.
    
     Then call up the advertisers without whose revenue shows are cancelled
    and explain to them that you will not buy products if they continue to
    advertise on certain shows.

P&G (I think) recently cancelled all their advertising on a bunch of sleazy
talk shows.  They had been rebuffed in their attempts to get them toned down.

       <<< Note 584.49 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>     > We have a hard time channel-surfing or frequency-scanning without
>     > coming upon repulsive material, and equally repulsive assaults on the
>     > mind.  The society has lost all shame - seen daytime tv lately ?
>
>     Amusements for the masses.  Such have always been anathema to those
>     of refined tastes.  The argument fails.
    
    	No, it does not fail, for you even say it is fodder of the MASSES.
    	The MASSES are negatively impacted.  Society is negatively 
    	impacted.

    re. 60
    
    Because Ted Bundy said it doesn't make it so!  

    
    	But just because Ted said it, does it make it wrong?
    

    re. 60
    
    I don't believe I have ever seen any "violent" pornography, except
    maybe the one where the pig was getting little too rough.

Are you disputing Bundy's statement that porn set him off?  On what basis?
Or are you disputing his _belief_ (as stated in .60) that porn is dangerous?

    	re .77
    
    	You didn't read the note you referenced.  It said that it is
    	EVERYWHERE (not just TV) including the billboard on your way
    	to work, and the city bus your child might ride to school.

    > You silly little man...
    
    testerical got under your skin, eh?  Calm down.
    
    >No one says you have to..."follow this beacon of moral thought"...
    >
    >Have you never read history and not learned from it??
    
    I've learned from Ted Bundy's history, but what I've learned does not
    endorse his peculiar view on pornography.  Sociopaths are often fixated
    on the things they like to blame for their own aberrant actions, Bundy
    is no exception.  It doesn't lend his argument any credibility.  Tell
    us what *you* learned from his ravings, oh wise one.
    
    DougO

    	re .68
    
    	What makes you think that pornography is a contemporary
    	phenomenon?  And such influence is not limited to print
    	or photo.  Proistitution and live nude entertainment also
    	can have the same effect, and such has existed since recorded
    	history (and I'd guess even before that.)

    re .87
    
    Prostitution and live nude entertainment is not as readily available
    and dirty little pictures hidden under the mattress Joe. Not having
    access to such things is what probably caused the violent raping and
    killing when armies would route a village or city in the good old days
    of yore, when men were men and did whatever the hell they wanted.

    >testerical got under your skin, eh?  Calm down.
    
    No need.... have you been noting so short a time that you cannot
    recognize when someone is agitated??
    
    "You silly little man..." means just that...
    
    "YOU SILLY LITTLE MAN!!!!!!!" would justify your suggestion... (your
    Midol must not be working)...
    
    >I've learned from Ted Bundy's history, but what I've learned does not
    >endorse his peculiar view on pornography.  Sociopaths are often fixated
    >on the things they like to blame for their own aberrant actions, Bundy
    >is no exception.  It doesn't lend his argument any credibility.  Tell
    >us what *you* learned from his ravings, oh wise one.
    
    "I've learned..." I see... So? The lack of endorsement is your
    perception or society as a whole?
    
    "Sociopaths are often..."  
    
    Your view, or is this a conclusion of someone who studied Bundy's final
    tapes and decided it was all in his mind??
    
    "It doesn't lend his argument any credibility." 
    
    Your view again or that of a good doctor??
    
    Ravings??    Shirley!!!
       
    Charles Manson "raves"... Have you watched Bundy's last tapes?
    
    

    Sexually explicit pictorials are quite old.  When Pompeii was
    excavated, the murals and mosaics were quite racy by modern standards. 
    This however does not make them pornographic.  Pornography is subjective
    and is a moving target.  The J.C. Penney catalog is most likely
    viewed as pornographic and exploitive to the more puritanical members
    of our society because it hints at the naughty bits.  
    
    Brian

Glenn, are you suggesting that we ship VCRs and XXX videos to Bosnia to solve
the problems there?

    Why yes Gerald, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Was I that
    transparent?

    Now, I've got to figure out a way to get my smutty murals under my
    waterbed mattress.

    Andy, I invited you to share the "wisdom" you glean from Bundy.
    Curiously, that line got no response from you.  You ducking?
    
    DougO

    
    
    Sheeeeeesh DougO!!! (<------- See!! That's an agitated stage.)
    
    He was cold, calculating, logical and factual...
    
    He shared his expriences and had absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
    
    I'm no physchologist and couldn't tell if he was lying or not..
    
    So what? Are you saying the things I gleaned and learned are all
    worthless? Are you saying he is an abberation and to be discounted
    because of who he is/was and what he did?
    
    Do you think he lived all alone in that sort of world?? How many Ted
    Bundy's would it convince you that it's more than just an abberation?
    
    Did you see him on those tapes? If you did, then you've made a
    conscious decision to believe or discount what he said and/or related.
    That's your decision... mine was to listen and realize that this man
    was dangerous and that there's many out there like him.... for many of
    the same reasons he gave...
    
    You "invited" me???  Get real!!! 
    
    >You ducking?
    
     Ducking what??? What would you like to hear DougO???
    
    
    How about you? You learned nothing from the likes of Stalin, Hitler 
    Manson?
    
    

    >He was cold, calculating, logical and factual...
    >
    >He shared his expriences and had absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
    
    cold, calculating, logical, factual, and psycho, remember.  He also had
    nothing to LOSE by lying, they were about to execute him.
    
    I invited you to do what I had already done- say what you thought were
    reasons to take moral guidance from a serial killer, which not too long
    ago you were chiding me for (.62, I think).  One can learn from the bad
    example of such types- but as for taking moral guidance from them, ie,
    your Stalin and Hitler references - no way.
    
    DougO

    
    
    When I said "your loss", it did not (literally) mean for you to take
    "moral guidance" from Ted Bundy as if from a Catholic priest.
     
    I meant it as *learning* more about "moral guidance" by using what you
    learned from types such as Bundy et al...
    
    So shoot me....
    

    So you agree that learning from their bad example doesn't mean taking
    moral guidance from them.
    
    Thus, I don't find his arguments against pornography compelling.
    
    DougO

    
    
    >So you agree that learning from their bad example doesn't mean taking
    >moral guidance from them.
    
    So I agree that learning from their bad example doesn't NECESSARILY
    mean taking moral guidance from them. 
    
    >Thus, I don't find his arguments against pornography compelling.
    
    ... and I do, to a certain extent... 
    
    Pass GO.. collect $200... and round and round we go...
    
    

 
    In .9, I said:
       
    >In Canada (I will look this up later and correct it if necessary) I
    >believe the age of consent is 14, provided the two parties are no more
    >than two years apart in age, and 16 otherwise (except for anal sex,
    >which is 18).
    
    After consulting my copy of the Criminal Code, I find that age of
    consent here is 12 (where the two parties are no more than two years
    apart in age), and 14 otherwise, EXCEPT in cases where the accused can
    be shown to occupy a position of trust or authority over the victim (or
    the victim is in a relationship of dependency upon the accused), in 
    which case, the age of consent is 18.
    
    The age of consent for anal sex is still 18, but drops to 14 if the
    practitioners are married.
    
    This is all from Sections 150 to 159 of the Crimial Code. 
    

    
    re: .90
    
    Gee Brian, thanks a lot!!! I enjoy the J. C. Penney catalog, I suppose
    now that if I enjoyed the Victoria's Secret catalog, I might be
    construed as amoral??? Well, so be it, I *like* the Victoria's
    Secret catalog. There it's out in the open. :-)

    You are amoral.  The only way to repent is to relinquish all of your
    pornographic materials.  VS, J.C. Penney, Sears, Fred's o' Hollyweird,
    all of 'em.  Send them to me Mark and I will help you find your way
    along the true path of morality. 
    
    Brian

    re: .45
    
    I disagree, Dick.  It is our responsibility as citizens to set standards 
    for our own communities.  Your attitude seems to be that even though
    you see much wrong being done, that we should meekly surrender to that
    wrong and not try and set any standards whatsoever (in certain areas of
    behavior). 
    
    Another thing you seem to forget is that it isn't the dreaded
    RR that is pushing an agenda on this nation, but those who continually
    chip away at the standards that were set long ago.  If I didn't know
    better (and I *do* know better, so don't get excited  8^) ), I'd say
    you were cheering on the sidelines as the morality of this nation is
    drug down to the level of the latter days of the Roman empire.
    
    
    
    -steve

    .103
    
    You can set standards.  Remember the old saw, "You can lead a horse to
    water but you can't make him drink"?  You set standards by example, not
    by compulsion.  The latter method breeds resentment.

    How come people don't understand this Dick? It is a mystery to me.

    re: .66
    
    The early courts disagree with your assertion.   Pornography was never
    covered under First Amendment protection until recent times (and I know
    of no SCOTUS ruling that actually places it under such protection,
    though I admit that my knowledge on SCOTUS rulings has a few holes in
    it).  I can post a ruling or two if you like.  They are very
    enlightening on the 'original intent' front. 
    
    
    -steve (I'm not trying to hound you, honestly.  8^) )

    re: .68 (not one of Dick's notes   8^) )
    
    >Sex crime is a result of moder[n] day pornography?!?
    
    Don't be silly, no one is saying that this.  The point being made is
    that pornography worsens such problems.  
    
    I think a quick study on cases of pornography addiction would be most
    enlightening for you, and may clarify the above point.
    
    
    -steve

|    I think a quick study on cases of pornography addiction would be most
|    enlightening for you, and may clarify the above point.

    You think I'm that ignorant do you?

    Well, I'm not saying [that this] either.

    re: .95
    
    Actually, he did have something to lose by lying.  
    
    
    -steve (being cryptic today)

Interesting discussion, but it doesn't seem to address the more relevant issue
regarding the effects on the victims. Although perhaps there is a difference
in some people's minds between pedophilia and child sexual abuse.

This is a subject of considerable interest to me - I am married to a "survivor"
who is also a counselor to other victims.

I find this forum to be of great interest to me on a variety of subjects, since
there are such active discussions with a wide variety of opinions, many of
are well expressed. I would therefore like to ask a question which address a
major aspect of this this topic:

Is the subject of sexual abuse of minors overblown ?

The reason I ask is that I have seen many victims, and have seen the destructive
effects, but I am exposed to an admittedly non-random sample. However, before
my current marriage, it seemed that a majority of the women I knew told me 
of past abuse when they were young.

I also know people who poopoo the whole idea, claim that actual abuse is rare,
and most reports are a result of therapy by idiot councelors who fabricate
false memory - i.e., Elizibeth Loftus and her ilk. I personally think she is
dog poopoo - I have heard (from the other side) that her research is funded by 
the False Memory Syndrome people.

Are there boxers out there who have strong opinions on this? 

    
      On false memory :  see Stephen J. Gould on this.  After several
     decades, he went back to childhood places in NYC, and discovered
     that some of his "fondest memories" were physically impossible.
     He is not sure why childhood memory is so unreliable, only that
     it is.  My (dearly departed) father noted the same phenomenon in
     us kids - we remembered things that never happened.  He suggested,
     as a completely unscientific theory, that we are so awful at early
     ages, that our brains deliberately distort our remembrances to blot
     out the guilt we would feel if we really knew what we were like.
    
      I do not doubt that SOME of the long-past pedophilia memories are
     true, and I bet some are completely fantasies.  It's a complicated
     problem, which is why any particular case is much stronger if there
     is some sort of corroboration.
    
      bb

    
    .110
    
    no, Bruce I believe the effects of sexual abuse on minors is
    destructive. My mother is a nurse and works in the psychiatric ward
    at a hospital. (visions of One flew over the Cuckoo's nest come to
    mind) and she has dealt extensively with multiple personality patients.
    
    She told me *every* single patient that she has had with this disorder,
    was sexually abused as a minor. I'm sure there have been studies done
    that bear this out, but not being in that field, I can't say for
    sure. It wouldn't surprise me to find a correlation between the two.
    
    Mark

    
    The Philippines is proposing the adoption of the death penalty for
    the crime of pedophilia.  The age of consent is 18.
    

    given that the mean age of teen pregancy male 1/2's are 5 years older
    than the teens and 7 years older in the case of children from 12-15,
    this law could considerably increase death row in the US if the same
    was adopted.  
    
    meg

from rec.humor.funny:

Q:      Why are Michael Jackson and Lisa-Marie are splitting up?



A:      Michael misunderstood when they discussed having children.

    RE: .115

    I heard that the split was a historic first:  the first time that a
    husband and wife were splitting up because he spent too much time with
    the kids.

    -- Dave

Quote from a person upset that a convicted child molester has a job at a
machine shop in his neighborhood:

"It's total insanity.  First he was living near a school, and now he's working
in a residential area.  I think that if an individual does this sort of thing,
he should move out of state and start a life somewhere else."

Duh!

    NIMBY!

    
    
    >WASHINGTON (Mar 4, 1996 09:45 a.m. EST) -- Children were the victims of
    >two-thirds of the sex offenders in state prisons
    
    	What were all those children doing in state prisons?
    

Somebody in PARENTING is looking for a "baby bugger."

LONDON,  (Mar.  26)  IPS  - Despite widespread  support  for
legislation  allowing the prosecution  at  home  of  British
tourists  committing sex offenses against  children  abroad,
Britain  has been reluctant to follow the example  of  other
developed nations with similar laws.
Save  the  Children,  Anti-Slavery International,  Christian
Aid,  and  other  NGOs say they will continue  pressing  for
change until the government backs down and ends its de facto
granting  of  immunity  from  prosecution  for  British  sex
tourists.
The  growth  of child prostitution has grown in tandem  with
the  growth of western tourism, particularly in Asia,  where
an  estimated  one  million children  have  been  forced  in
various ways into sex slavery.
The NGO End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism (ECPAT) says
there  are  up to 200,000 in child prostitutes in  Thailand,
60,000  in  the Philippines and 40,000 in Sri Lanka  with  a
growing problem in Cambodia, Vietnam and Burma.
The  problem is increasing worldwide. In Colombia, one-third
of all prostitutes are reported to be under 14 and one in 20
is  under  10  while child prostitution is  also  a  growing
phenomenon in Kenya and the Dominican Republic.   NGOs  have
noted  its  rise in Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and  Russia.
There  are reports that child prostitution is gaining ground
in Mozambique and Liberia.
Of  the  160 foreigners convicted of sexually abusing  Asian
children  in  recent years, one in eight came from  Britain,
which  places it in fourth place in the league of travelling
child abusers behind Germany, America and Australia.
All   three  have  enacted  legislation  enabling  them   to
prosecute  their  own  nationals  for  sexual  offenses   on
children  abroad. Others include Belgium, Denmark,  Finland,
France,  New  Zealand,  Norway and Sweden.  Yet  Britain  is
unwilling to follow suit.
"The  British government is very unsupportive towards  calls
for  legislation against its citizens who go  to  developing
countries  just to rob poor and innocent children  of  their
innocence,"  said Eileen Maybin, a Christian Aid campaigner.
"This is a disgrace."
British  tour  operators  have  also  been  criticized   for
promoting  sex  tourism in so-called exotic destinations  by
emphasizing  the  presence  of  a  "lively  nightlife"   and
alluding to the commercial sex industry in a bid to  attract
customers.
Although  a  non-party bill that would allow the prosecution
of  British tour companies and others found to be  promoting
child  prostitution abroad is expected to become  law  soon,
campaigners are far from satisfied, describing it as a "half-
measure."
Maybin  said:  "Half-measures  are  not  the  answer.   Tour
operators are just the tip of the iceberg, because not  many
people   go   on  organized  sex  tours.  Most   travel   as
individuals,  so what is needed is legislation  that  allows
the  prosecution  of individual tourists who  commit  sexual
offenses against children in these countries."
But  a  stronger  bill introduced by Lord Hylton,  which  if
passed  would allow the prosecution of pedophiles and others
who sexually exploit under-age children overseas, was thrown
out  of  parliament in May 1995. It is to be resubmitted  in
the next two months.
"A  great  number  of  MPs, over 250 in  fact,  support  the
(Hylton)  bill, but success is impossible without government
support," said Helen Veitch, coordinator at the Coalition on
Child Prostitution and Tourism, a grouping of seven British-
based  NGOs.  "The government says we should not  raise  our
hopes."
"I  am amazed that the government does not support it," said
Ken Livingstone, an opposition Labor Party MP. "If there was
a proper, free vote on it, it would carry."
A  spokesman for the Home Office, Britain's internal affairs
department,  said  the government was opposed  to  the  bill
because  it  was reluctant to enact legislation  that  could
interfere  with the laws of other countries. They  are  also
concerned  about access to trial witnesses and the  accuracy
of evidence.
This rationale is dismissed by campaigners, who say that  it
has   not   stopped  Australia_with  a  similar  legal   and
legislative   framework  to  Britain's_from  enacting   laws
allowing   the  prosecution  of  sexual  offenders   against
children overseas.
Australian  law  provides for the  prosecution  at  home  of
anyone accused of sexual offenses against a child under  16,
whether  or  not it is an offense in the country  concerned.
The  penalty for sexual intercourse of any kind with a child
under  12  is 17 years in jail and from 12 to 15, it  is  14
years.  Procuring  carries similar  penalties.  Offenses  of
indecency carry terms of up to 12 years.
The  association between child prostitution and  tourism  is
well-established one. Child prostitution and sex tourism are
doing  untold physical and psychological damage to  children
in developing countries, say campaigners.
In  August  a  world  congress will  open  in  Stockholm  to
consider  the  global  problem  of  sexual  exploitation  of
children,  organized by UNICEF, the Swedish  government  and
other NGOs.
"The   importance  of  the  Hylton  Bill  cannot   be   over
emphasized,"  said  Jenny Borden, a British  campaigner  who
says British tourists are among the worst offenders.
"Child  prostitution is already a problem in Asia and  South
America.  It  has now taken hold in Kenya,  and  if  we  are
complacent  about it, it could spread to other countries  in
Africa."
She  said  that  since Britain already has extra-territorial
jurisdiction over its citizens for crimes such as murder and
torture,  it  should be a routine matter to incorporate  the
bill  into  existing legislation on sexual offenses  against
children.
NGOs  cite the successful prosecution last June of  69-year-
old  retired Swedish civil servant Bengt Bolin for  sexually
abusing  a  13-year-old boy while on  holiday  in  Thailand.
Jumping  bail  in  Bangkok he escaped prosecution,  but  was
given  a  three-month  jail  sentence  by  a  Swedish  judge
instead.
The  verdict  has  strengthened the case  for  a  change  in
British  law,  says  Jack Arthey, head of Christian's  Aid's
South East Asia team. "The Swedes have shown legislation can
work,  successfully prosecuting a man who had  escaped  Thai
jurisdiction  by  leaving the country  while  on  bail.  The
British  government should think again about its  opposition
to the Hylton Bill."

     Judge Ignores Bail Plea, Child Abuser Flees

     By Associated Press, 05/10/96

     NEW YORK (AP) - A man convicted of sexually abusing his pre-teen
     daughter remains at large after jumping bail, which was set at $10,000
     despite pleas from prosecutors that he be held without bail.

     ``The trial evidence was overwhelming,'' against Erick Rodriguez, 40,
     Mary deBourbon, spokeswoman for Queens district attorney Richard
     Brown, said Thursday. ``We were asking that he be held without bail.''

     Instead, state Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Pitaro rejected six
     requests for increased bail or no bail since the trial began April 29,
     deBourbon said. Prosecutors had suggested raising bail from $10,000 to
     $500,000, if Pitaro refused to revoke it entirely.

     ``This was outrageous,'' said Marjory Fisher, head of the district
     attorney's Special Victims Bureau.

     The evidence against Rodriquez included the horrifying testimony of
     his now 11-year-old daughter. She detailed how her father nightly
     slipped under her Snow White comforter to touch and sodomize her over
     eight months.

     ``I prayed every night it would end,'' said the girl. She was living
     with her divorced father and younger brother while their mother lived
     in Canada. The girl kept quiet about the assaults fearing that she and
     her brother would end up with no place to live.

     But she finally told a teacher at her Queens school about the repeated
     incidents. Both children are now in the mother's custody. The girl is
     fearful that her father could return to molest her, since he has fled
     authorities, the Daily News reported today.

     ``It's not fair he disappeared,'' she told her mother after hearing
     that her father was at large. Staff at the girl's school were on alert
     in case Rodriguez showed up, the News said.

     The girl's mother, Song Kang, said that she and her brother were
     afraid that their father ``will kidnap them and taken them away from
     me.

     The sexual abuse occurred between October 1994 and May 1995. A DNA
     expert also testified to a match between Rodriguez and semen found on
     the girl's underwear, while pubic hair removed from the child also
     matched with her father.

     ``Sometimes, in hindsight, you may be wrong,'' said the judge's clerk,
     Stephen Knopf. ``The judge regrets that the defendant left the
     proceedings without permission.''

     Rodriguez, a pharmacology student, testified in his own defense
     Monday, denying the allegations and blaming his ex-wife's boyfriends
     for the sexual abuse. He then failed to show up in court on Tuesday.

     Pitaro issued an arrest warrant for Rodriguez after he was convicted
     in absentia Wednesday of sodomy, attempted rape, sex abuse, incest and
     endangering the welfare of a child.

     He now faces 75 years in prison.

    
    
    Pitaro should be tried for gross negligence in the performance of his
    duties...
    

    Yeah, but he "regrets" the fact that he enabled the guy to scoot.
    
    Neat job he's got, though. No performance review.

    from the BOWIE BLADE NEWS, May 9, 1996 (MD)
    
    A 38 year old man has been charged with parental child abuse against
    his 8 year old daughter after the daughter complained to her scholl
    officials.
    
    A medical exam confirmed that intercourse had taken place.  The girl
    has accused her father of abusing her from the age of 3.  The wife has
    filed divorce proceedings against the husband, their marriage totaling
    16 years.
    
    The man claims innocence but admits having sexual intercourse and
    having the daughter perform various sexual acts on his person.  No bail
    has been set for the case.  

    how can one admit having sexual intercourse w/ an 8yr old but claim
    innocence against all cgharges?????? 

	I was thinking the same thing, Ron. It doesn't seem possible. 

    
    I'm sure he thinks she wanted it.  You know how sexually excited
    3-year-olds can get.
    
    

	It never ceases to amaze me how someone can harm a child and think it
is ok.....

    
    Man facing sex assault charges is freed on bail
    
    By Paul Langner, Globe Staff, 05/10/96 
    
    Mark D. Lender, a convicted child abuser facing a new sex assault charge, 
    was released from jail yesterday on $5,000 cash bail, sparking anger and 
    fear among his victims' relatives and residents of his Plymouth 
    neighborhood. 
    
    ``I cannot believe he is being released already,'' said the mother of a boy
    abused by Lender. ``How could the judge find he is not a danger to society?
    This man has a psychosexual disorder.'' 
    
    But Lender's attorney, Marshall E. Johnson, emphasizing that Lender must 
    be presumed innocent until proven guilty on the latest charge, said he did 
    not consider Lender's bail too low. 
    
    Lender, 34, an unemployed truck driver, had been held at the Plymouth 
    County House of Correction since April 27 when he was arrested and charged 
    with raping a 14-year-old Plymouth girl. 
    
    The alleged rape took place in December, according to Plymouth District 
    Attorney Michael Sullivan. At the time, Lender was free on $500 bail
    awaiting trial for sexually abusing three boys in Abington. 
    
    He was found guilty of those three sexual assaults and Superior Court 
    Judge James M. Quinn sentenced him to six months in the House of 
    Correction, 30 days to be served, the rest suspended. He served that 
    sentence and was released in February. 
    
    Arrested in April on the rape charge, Lender was held without bail until 
    District Judge Thomas Brownell set $5,000 bail on Tuesday. 
    
                  

    He lives right across the street from the girl he is awaiting trial for
    molesting. If I were her father, he would come home to find the place
    burnt to the ground. That's only if I were in a good mood and waited
    for him to leave.

    Fight M'lestings

    My wife called and said the 8 yr old that was mentioned in the father
    molesting story a few notes back played on our daughter's soccer team
    last fall...I can't remember the parents but we did remember that the
    daughter was very introverted 

    What is it with these numbskull judges?  New York seems to have
    more than its share of idiots, too bad they all couldn't be re-
    moved from office.
    
    The police have come under heavy fire for corruption; I don't condone
    what some of these cops have done, but when they see bonehead decisions
    made over and over by judges (and the judges getting away with it),
    it's no wonder they no longer give a damn themselves.
    
    

Actually, most judge-ships in New York State are elected positions.

    Panel favors chemical castration
    
    Associated Press
    
    DENVER -- Mandatory chemical castration for repeat child molesters, as
    a condition of parole, cleared the House State Affairs Committee on 
    Thursday. HB1133, by Rep. Doug Dean, R-Colorado Springs, was introduced to
    protect what he called the most innocent of victims from "the scum of the 
    earth," and only as an alternative to his first choice, "locking them up 
    and throwing away the key." The cost of doing that would be too high, he 
    said.
    
    No witnesses testified on either side of the issue.
    
    The bill gives judges no alternative but to order administration of the
    chemicals, a point which caused four Democrats on the panel to balk at the 
    bill. The chemical used would vary from offender to offender, as medical
    officials determine, but Dean said the effect is to reduce testosterone, 
    "similar to having your dog neutered to reduce his aggressiveness."
    
    "Pedophiles, in no uncertain terms, are the scum of the earth," he told
    the committee. "Is it an extreme approach? Absolutely!" he said.
    But studies have shown the approach is effective, the primary reason
    California adopted it last year, Dean pointed out. Dean's bill was amended 
    to limit the application to those who have committed two or more felony 
    offenses, and a section allowing the penalty to be used in statutory rape 
    cases was removed. The list of drugs that can be used was expanded.
    Still in the bill is a requirement that the offender pay for the drug,
    if possible. It allows surgical castration as an alternative.
    
    Dean said he was surprised there were no supporting witnesses, because
    he got several "God bless you!" calls about the measure. And he expected 
    opposition witnesses, he said, "because the American Civil Liberties Union 
    hates this bill." Actually, the chemical castration is not permanent, and 
    once the injections of Depo-Provera -- a drug that suppresses
    testosterone production -- ceases, sex drive returns, Dean conceded.
    
    Refusal of both chemical castration or surgery means a return to
    prison, and prisoners would have to serve full sentences
    before being released.  Rep. Todd Saliman, D-Boulder, who voted against 
    the bill, wondered about the imposition of the drug in view of cases
    that are not sexually motivated, but are cases of violence only.
    In those events, he said, a judge should have an alternative and not be
    required to issue the drug-castration order.
    
    The bill also was changed to make appropriate counseling mandatory for
    inmates before a decision on the chemical injections. The bill requires 
    molesters, before being paroled, to begin receiving weekly injections of 
    the drug, and the injections would continue until it is determined they 
    are no longer needed.
    
    Dean and the bill's Senate sponsor, Sen. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora,
    believe the bill is necessary because most experts say child molesters 
    repeatedly seek new victims. The bill would not apply to those now serving 
    sentences, only those convicted after the measure becomes law.

    Problem
    
    Depo has not proven to be an effective sex repressent without a high
    degree of motivation and accompanying therapy.   There have been
    studies on this.  Also, the therapy and drugs can only continue as long
    as the convict is on parole or probation.  since the average sentence
    for pediphiles in CO is 5 years probation, after that the people are
    back and able to be looking for new children.   

    So? The facts have never stopped government from adding to their legal
    arsenal before.  :-)

    As I am well aware.  However, I think this needs to be pointed out, as
    chemically or even physically castrated pediphiles are still quite
    capable of preying on children.  I am afraid this is a "feel good" bill
    which will give people a false sense of security.  
    meg