Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: MISCELLANEOUS
Message-ID: <500@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 21-Jan-84 22:47:50 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.500
Posted: Sat Jan 21 22:47:50 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jan-84 02:13:27 EST
References: <499@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 26

Can we assume from your last posting that NAMBLA is not asking for a
reduction of the age of consent, but seeks to remove that concept entirely?
If so, it seems that you are trading off common sense for a kind of
ideological purity, one that does not jibe with reality.

The mandate recognizing children as a protected class is very, very old.
There were laws recognizing that as long ago as ancient Greek and Roman
societies.  I find the assertion that the current status of children arises
out of a patriarchal, sexist, anti-human, capitalist, [fill-in-your-favorite-
derogatory-adjective] society unconvincing.  At the very LEAST, I want to
hear reasons backing up that assertion.  What rapacious self-interest does
Western Society have to ensure that children remain impotent until some
agreed upon age?  Indeed, from a purely capitalist point of view, they look
like a vast, unexplored resource.  What better way to increase our own
fortune than to put them to work, so that they may be manipulated by
advertising to give up their precious hard-earned dollars.  The Saturday
morning TV commercials pale before such gigantic economic potential!

Parents hold the rights of their children in escrow until they reach
the age of consent.  In a sense, they act as stewards for those inalienable
rights bestowed upon all people, until such time as the children are of
an age to assume them.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca