Arthur C. Clarke scandal
Alan Gore
jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
>Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
>with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
>on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
>things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
>I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
>to read another of his books if this were true.
An old friend of mine was once a houseguest of Clarke's, and mentioned
this proclivity (though not the "paid" part).
So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
ag...@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government
Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys
Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.primenet.com/~agore
Jay Shorten
The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
to read another of his books if this were true.
Jay Shorten
jsho...@ix.netcom.com
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <34d3e554...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, jsho...@ix.netcom.com
(Jay Shorten) wrote:
Quite so. After all, no one in history has ever had consensual sex with a
teenager. Certainly no writer worth reading.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Arthur Hlavaty
Jay Shorten (jsho...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
: Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
: with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
: on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
: things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
: I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
: to read another of his books if this were true.
Do I get to make the first "Childhood's End" joke?
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Dan Goodman
In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Alan Gore <ag...@primenet.com> wrote:
>jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>
>>The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
>>Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
>>with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
>>on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
>>things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
>
>>I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
>>to read another of his books if this were true.
>
>this proclivity (though not the "paid" part).
>
>So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
>characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
My recollection of "Imperial Earth" is that bisexuality was considered
normal -- anyone who was exclusively heterosexual or exclusively
homosexual was a Pitiable Pervert.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Jo Walton
In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
ag...@primenet.com "Alan Gore" writes:
> So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
He's bi, no?
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
John Boston
In article <886355...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
> ag...@primenet.com "Alan Gore" writes:
>
>> So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
>> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
>
>He's bi, no?
He confirmed in an interview that he had "had bisexual
experiences" (interviewer's paraphrase), and added: "Who hasn't? Good
God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he
was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their
encounters. I don't want to go into detail about my own life, but I
just want it to be noted that I have a rather relaxed sympathetic
attitude about it--and that's something I've really not said out loud
before. Let's move on." From Neil McAleer, ARTHUR C. CLARKE: THE
AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY (Contemporary Books 1992). Actually, checking the
notes, this is from an interview published in PLAYBOY, August 1986. I
have no idea what he may have said about this on other occasions.
John Boston
Mitch Wagner
ag...@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote:
>So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
>characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
Being gay and being a pedophile are NOT the same thing. Most gays--gay
Americans at least--only have sex with consenting adults, same as
heterosexuals.
--
mitch w. thri...@ibm.net
"The coming of age of the Internet has generated countless dubious
pronouncements, but none quite so self defeating as the claim that the
Internet has come of age. Genuineley mature media - newspapers,
television, sidewalk preachers - do not inspire incessant stories
about their maturity. The Internet, on the other hand, is like a
toddler proudly hailed as a big boy every time he goes potty with
slightly less mess than expected." - Spy
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 1 Feb 1998 19:50:28 GMT, jbo...@mindspring.com (John Boston)
wrote:
> He confirmed in an interview that he had "had bisexual
>experiences" (interviewer's paraphrase), and added: "Who hasn't? Good
>God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he
>was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their
>encounters. "
Clarke really is an idiot sometimes, isn't he? Or at least he grossly
over-generalizes from his own experience.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, now available! $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 1/13/98
Jo Walton
In article <6b2jm4$e...@camel21.mindspring.com>
jbo...@mindspring.com "John Boston" writes:
> In article <886355...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
> says...
> >
> >In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
> > ag...@primenet.com "Alan Gore" writes:
> >
> >> So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
> >> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
> >
> >He's bi, no?
>
> He confirmed in an interview that he had "had bisexual
> experiences"
<snip>
this is from an interview published in PLAYBOY, August 1986. I
> have no idea what he may have said about this on other occasions.
I didn't mean Clarke.
I have no interest whatsoever in Clarke's sexual preferences.
I meant the character in :Imperial Earth:, Duncan Makenzie. He isn't
gay, as the previous poster suggested, he's bi.
He is involved in quite an interesting FMM triad at one point in the
novel too, IIRC.
Can we stick to talking about books? We already did "are the morals
of authors relevant to whether one can enjoy their work" wirto Pound
a while back and it can get _very_ nasty, not to mention dull.
Lars Syrstad
* Jay Shorten
|
| I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
| to read another of his books if this were true.
Why not? Are you afraid of contamination?
- Lars.
--
Fly like a rock from the roof to the basement
The last thing to go through my mind is the pavement
(Falling out of love with life)
-- Skyclad: Helium
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <886355...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>He's bi, no?
I seem to recall he was married once, and divorced again practically before
the ink was dry on the certificate.
I also have the feeling it's kind of pointless to talk about the matter in
the present tense. The man is 85 or thereabouts and in a wheelchair.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com (NOTE NEW ADDRESS)
John & Linda VanSickle
Alan Gore wrote:
>
> jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>
> >The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
> >Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
> >with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
> >on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
> >things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
>
> >to read another of his books if this were true.
>
> this proclivity (though not the "paid" part).
>
> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
There was a gay couple in 2061.
Regards,
John
--
"Don't you even take the bones out of it?"
"If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?"
http://www.erols.com/vansickl
jfoyt
Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay? As for
the "paid sex" part, I wouldn't believe a word of it. I'd guess that the
story was made up by the local rag in an attempt to sell more newspapers.
The "coincidence" with the Prince's visit was probably just the event the
newspaper was looking for in order to break this "story."
John Foyt
Dan Goodman wrote:
> In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Alan Gore <ag...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten) wrote:
> >
> >>The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
> >>Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
> >>with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
> >>on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
> >>things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
> >
> >>I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
> >>to read another of his books if this were true.
> >
> >An old friend of mine was once a houseguest of Clarke's, and mentioned
> >this proclivity (though not the "paid" part).
> >
> >So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
> >characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
>
Elethiomel
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> >I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
> >to read another of his books if this were true.
I find no reason to justify having sex with a child, and I have serious
doubts that paying a third-world thirteen year old child to have sex
with him could come under the heading of "consensual" intercourse.
This said, I have so much respect and affection for Clarcke, that I
think I'd choose to consider him a sick man, which partly horrifies me
and partly invite my pity. I still like his books.
--
Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel
Anna esta' en la linea
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <34d5eab7...@news.clark.net>,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
> On 1 Feb 1998 19:50:28 GMT, jbo...@mindspring.com (John Boston)
> wrote:
>
>> He confirmed in an interview that he had "had bisexual
>>experiences" (interviewer's paraphrase), and added: "Who hasn't? Good
>>God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he
>>was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their
>>encounters. "
>
> Clarke really is an idiot sometimes, isn't he? Or at least he grossly
> over-generalizes from his own experience.
>
have some small basis for understanding where he is at.
Even if everything that nasty rag said was true and true in
the worst possible context, I'd still have a lot of trouble
accepting that he hurt anyone. I think he would be exceedingly
careful not to do so.
Circumstances *always* alter cases. Things are not black
and white, yet that is all our laws can be.
Geoff...
--
____________________________________________________________
E-Mail: Geoff C. Marshall <co...@ozemail.com.au>
No Spam please. Private correspondence only.
Please remove from all lists.
____________________________________________________________
The following should PLEASE note this;
ro...@aol.com, postm...@aol.com
ro...@hotmail.com, postm...@hotmail.com
ro...@mail-man.net, postm...@mail-man.net
John Scalzi
On Sun, 01 Feb 1998 03:09:38 GMT, jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten)
wrote:
>The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
>Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
>with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
>on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
>things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
I heard he also had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.
------------
John Scalzi
http://members.aol.com/jscalzi
AOL keyword:scalzi
11317...@compuserve.com
In article ,
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>
> In article , jsho...@ix.netcom.com
> (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>
> >The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
> >Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
> >with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
> >on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
> >things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
> >
> >to read another of his books if this were true.
>
> teenager. Certainly no writer worth reading.
>
> -----
> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Patrick:
Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys, I
feel it is a little narrow minded to allow it to change (I guess) your
previously high opinion of his futuristic writings. Do you really believe
every word the Sunday Mirror prints?
Paul Summers
113174.2263
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David Joseph Greenbaum
In a fit of divine composition, 11317...@compuserve.com inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: Patrick:
:
: Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys, I
: feel it is a little narrow minded to allow it to change (I guess) your
: previously high opinion of his futuristic writings. Do you really believe
: every word the Sunday Mirror prints?
:
: Paul Summers
: 113174.2263
Methinks the gentleman has missed a certain dram of irony in Mr. Hayden's
remarks.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
Jonathan Dresner
In article <34D56509...@ecom.net>, jfoyt <jf...@ecom.net> wrote:
>Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay? As for
>the "paid sex" part, I wouldn't believe a word of it. I'd guess that the
>story was made up by the local rag in an attempt to sell more newspapers.
>The "coincidence" with the Prince's visit was probably just the event the
>newspaper was looking for in order to break this "story."
Truth to tell, I wasn't, until this story came out (so to speak). Why
would I? He doesn't make a big thing about sexuality in his writing, nor does he
discuss his personal life in his introductions (I would be surprised, for example,
were Harlan Ellison revealed to be bisexual, since so much of his life has already
been revealed in his own writing; I would not be surprised to learn that Spider
Robinson were bisexual -- quite the opposite, since he has explicitly written
several places that strict homosexuality or heterosexuality is misguided) so I have
no preconception one way or the other.
Jonathan
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <886417474....@dejanews.com>, 11317...@compuserve.com wrote:
>In article ,
> p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>>
>> In article , jsho...@ix.netcom.com
>> (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>>
>> >The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
>> >Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
>> >with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
>> >on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
>> >things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
>> >
>> >I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
>> >to read another of his books if this were true.
>>
>> Quite so. After all, no one in history has ever had consensual sex with a
>> teenager. Certainly no writer worth reading.
>>
>> -----
>> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
>
>
>Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys, I
>feel it is a little narrow minded to allow it to change (I guess) your
>previously high opinion of his futuristic writings. Do you really believe
>every word the Sunday Mirror prints?
You couldn't have misread me more completely. I think you meant to address
your comments to "Jay Shorten (jsho...@ix.netcom.com)", whose remarks I was
quoting and, rather drily, commenting on.
John Scalzi
On Sun, 01 Feb 1998 22:17:45 -0800, jfoyt <jf...@ecom.net> wrote:
>Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay?
I wasn't. Why would I know? I don't believe he's ever "come out" or
anything.
Plain and Simple Cronan
jfoyt wrote in message <34D56509...@ecom.net>...
>Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay?
Someone wanna tell me why I should care what he does in his bedroom?
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, ag...@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote:
>So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
>characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
There are bisexual characters in _The Songs of Distant Earth_ and in one
of those sequels to _2001_ (I think it's _2010_). Come to that, the
ones in _IE_ were mostly bisexual AFAIR.
None of which matters a damn to me, nor do these rumours -- if Clarke
ever again writes anything worth reading (unlikely, but you never know),
I'll buy it, unless there's some plausible evidence of a violent crime
or something like that (which no-one is even claiming, yet).
-- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Mail from hotmail.com is ignored due to spamming.
I use PGP 2.6.2.
Stevens
I did not know that Clarke was gay. Fact is, I _still_ don't,
though I guess I'm now aware that some people think they do.
And, as P&SC implies, I can't imagine a reason I should care.
Ray Ciscon
In article <6b4opf$q...@camel19.mindspring.com>, "Plain and Simple Cronan"
<cro...@DeathsDoor.com> wrote:
> jfoyt wrote in message <34D56509...@ecom.net>...
> >Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay?
>
> Someone wanna tell me why I should care what he does in his bedroom?
Because if he chooses to do it with minors of any age or sex, it's a
shame, and illegal in most parts of the world.
That said, I will say that this knowledge will probably not affect my
literary & scientific admiration of the man. For gods sake he invented the
communication satellite!
But that's not the reason my literary admiration won't be affected. I have
read most, not all, but most of his works, and I never saw any overt
politicing or promotion of his lifestyle, unlike Allen Ginsberg.
Ginsberg, a darling of the liberal media, not only supported sex with
young, under age boys, he supported NAMBLA, a despicable organization if
there ever was one.
If Clarke had supported pedophilia in his writings my attitudes would be
different. But to my views, he kept his personal life apart from his work.
I can respect his work. I cannot respect his personal life if he is/was a
pedophile.
Also, I did not know that A. C. Clarke was gay. I really don't care
either. It's not the homosexuality that disapoints me, it's the
pedophilia. I'd be just as disappointed if he admitted abusing little
girls.
I don't care what the sex, or sexual orientation is. Pedophilia is bad.
*********************************************************************
Ray Ciscon | "Give War a Chance" -- P.J. O'Rourke
------------|--------------------------------------------------------
Earthdawn | "You cannot enslave a free man. The worst you can do is
ShadowRun | kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Battletech | +++ Fight the Hegemony - Choose Macintosh +++
*********************************************************************
Thomas Womack
Beth and Richard Treitel wrote in message <34d5e91...@news.wco.com>...
>To my surprise and delight, ag...@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote:
>
>>So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
>>characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
>
>There are bisexual characters in _The Songs of Distant Earth_ and in one
>of those sequels to _2001_ (I think it's _2010_). Come to that, the
>ones in _IE_ were mostly bisexual AFAIR.
>
>None of which matters a damn to me, nor do these rumours -- if Clarke
>ever again writes anything worth reading (unlikely, but you never know),
>I'll buy it, unless there's some plausible evidence of a violent crime
>or something like that (which no-one is even claiming, yet).
I'm not concerned about that - I'm concerned about stiff-necked Puritans not
letting the books be distributed through somewhere like W H Smith's. This is
the shop which almost stopped distributing *Private Eye* after the
death-of-Diana special edition.
Tom
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <rciscon-0202...@chi-il24-23.ix.netcom.com>,
rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) writes:
>
> I don't care what the sex, or sexual orientation is. Pedophilia is bad.
>
I think a number of people are operating under different
premises.
I'll contend that any degradation or exploitation of anyone,
but particularly children, is "evil". That's about as far
as I want to go with blanket statements....
Anyone who can say "paedophillia is bad" doesn't seem to
ghave thought much about the subject. Say for example
some one is "born" (note the quotes) with this inclianation
(paedophillia), but never, ever, practices it or exploits
a child (for whatever reason). Are they "bad" ? I don't
think so.
Is "Mrs. Robinson" from "The Graduate" considered "bad" ?
Lets find out what we are talking about, not just declaim
from different vocabularies...
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:30:58 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
wrote:
>Because if he chooses to do it with minors of any age or sex, it's a
>shame, and illegal in most parts of the world.
Except that the meaning of "minors" is a variable, and it requires a
fair amount of cultural imperialism to conclude that one's local
standards ought to apply everywhere to everyone.
It should also be obvious to any American, at least, that one can't
readily divine the actual moral standards of a country from its laws.
In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
three dildos, and on and on--and yet none of these laws is enforced
with even a tenth of the vigor which we devote to our equally
unenforceable drug laws. Those laws represent a "face morality" which
is substantially disengaged from the actual public morality--we could
not begin to build enough courts or prisons to handle the number of
willing violators of our "blue laws." So what we get is selective
enforcement against unpopular minorities, coercion and abuse of sex
workers, and politically-motivated prosecutions (in most jusidictions,
you can see this in the treatment of streetwalkers, who are visible,
vs. call girls, who are not--the actual morality being enforced here
is NIMBY).
Best,
K-Mac
[CC'd to e-mail]
---] Michael Paul McDowell, writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell [---
---] Member SFWA, Inc. * Member WGA, East, Inc. [---
---] Author of EXILE * THE QUIET POOLS * THE BLACK FLEET CRISIS [---
---] Web Site: http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac [---
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <34D56509...@ecom.net>, jfoyt <jf...@ecom.net> wrote:
>Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay? As for
>the "paid sex" part, I wouldn't believe a word of it. I'd guess that the
>story was made up by the local rag in an attempt to sell more newspapers.
>The "coincidence" with the Prince's visit was probably just the event the
>newspaper was looking for in order to break this "story."
>
right newspapers.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
November '97 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6b2jm4$e...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
John Boston <jbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <886355...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
>says...
>>
>>In article <6b1071$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>> ag...@primenet.com "Alan Gore" writes:
>>
>>> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
>>
>
> He confirmed in an interview that he had "had bisexual
>experiences" (interviewer's paraphrase), and added: "Who hasn't? Good
>God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he
>was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their
Then he's a bit more ignorant of the range of human experience
(and of his own ignorance) than I would have hoped.
>encounters. I don't want to go into detail about my own life, but I
>just want it to be noted that I have a rather relaxed sympathetic
>attitude about it--and that's something I've really not said out loud
>before. Let's move on."
Alan Gore
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>My recollection of "Imperial Earth" is that bisexuality was considered
>normal -- anyone who was exclusively heterosexual or exclusively
>homosexual was a Pitiable Pervert.
Yes, that's how it was presented - but I'm addressing the possible
sensitivity of Christian readers TODAY to such a character.
ag...@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government
Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys
Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.primenet.com/~agore
Marilee J. Layman
In <1998020201...@padova12-44.tin.it>,
eleth...@geocities.com (Elethiomel) wrote:
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >I do hope this is just a piece of scurrilous gossip. I could not bear
>> >to read another of his books if this were true.
>
>I find no reason to justify having sex with a child, and I have serious
>doubts that paying a third-world thirteen year old child to have sex
>with him could come under the heading of "consensual" intercourse.
>
>This said, I have so much respect and affection for Clarcke, that I
>think I'd choose to consider him a sick man, which partly horrifies me
>and partly invite my pity. I still like his books.
Please be careful with your quotes. Patrick didn't say that, Jay
Shorten did.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
RELM Mu...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://home.virtual-pc.com/outland/owc/index.html
AOL keyword: WOM > Books > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On 2 Feb 1998 20:48:12 -0500, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:
>I hadn't heard that he was gay--I must not have been reading the
>right newspapers.
In his PLAYBOY interview of a few years ago, he
acknowledged--nonspecifically--having bisexual experiences, and said
"I think Freud said something to the effect that we're all
polymorphously perverse, you know. And, of course, we are." The
interview is quoted at length in his authorized biography, and the
word "bisexuality" appears in the index. The biographer also reports
that Clarke was greatly influenced by Kinsey's SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE
HUMAN MALE, in which he found "an objective perspective on his own
sexuality, and this became very important to him."
I don't know of any other source which goes beyond what Clarke said in
the PLAYBOY interview and what those two pages in the biography
relate.
Best,
K-Mac
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <6b5ku1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael P. Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
> adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
> criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
> three dildos,
I find that last one hard to believe. Cite, please?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"Never throw fruit at someone who understands the theatrics
of the situation better than you do." --David Denby
Ray Ciscon
In article <34d64...@news.syd.att.net.au>, co...@marshall.wattle.id.au
(Geoffrey Charles Marshall) wrote:
> In article <rciscon-0202...@chi-il24-23.ix.netcom.com>,
> rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) writes:
> >
> > I don't care what the sex, or sexual orientation is. Pedophilia is bad.
> >
> Define paedophilia.
Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
laws. Here in the US, 'Age of Consent' varies from state to state, with 16
being the lowest I'm aware of.
>
> I think a number of people are operating under different
> premises.
>
> I'll contend that any degradation or exploitation of anyone,
> but particularly children, is "evil". That's about as far
> as I want to go with blanket statements....
>
> Anyone who can say "paedophillia is bad" doesn't seem to
> ghave thought much about the subject.
How much thought does the subject need? As an adult, I know that having
sex with minors is illegal. It's not just the law, it's a good idea.
I don't care if someone forces a minor to have sex, or seduces them into
thinking it's alright and therefore consensual. Sex with minors is WRONG!
Minors, on average, do not have the maturity or reasoning power to make
these kinds of decisions themselves. That's why we have these laws.
Say for example
> some one is "born" (note the quotes) with this inclianation
> (paedophillia), but never, ever, practices it or exploits
> a child (for whatever reason). Are they "bad" ? I don't
> think so.
No the person in this example is 'good'. Everyone alive has, as
ex-president Jimmy Carter reffered to as "Lust in my heart". But not
everyone gives in to it. I am a married man, but I am also a normal
heterosexual male. Genetic instinct makes me 'lust' after the opposite sex
often, but it is my civilized intellect and my 'love' for my wife that
keeps me faithful.
>
> Is "Mrs. Robinson" from "The Graduate" considered "bad" ?
I would consider her bad, because if I remember correctly, she was married
at the time. She made a vow of fidelity to her husband, and broke it.
>
> Lets find out what we are talking about, not just declaim
> from different vocabularies...
>
> Geoff...
> --
This is not a heavy intellectual issue. Messing around sexually with
minors is wrong. Only members of NAMBLA, or totally whacked-out liberals
would argue on this point!
Ray Ciscon
In article <6b5ku1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, K-...@worldnet.att.net
(Michael P. Kube-McDowell) wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:30:58 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
> wrote:
>
> >Because if he chooses to do it with minors of any age or sex, it's a
> >shame, and illegal in most parts of the world.
>
> Except that the meaning of "minors" is a variable, and it requires a
> fair amount of cultural imperialism to conclude that one's local
> standards ought to apply everywhere to everyone.
>
Mr. McDowell, you are of course correct, and I touched upon this issue in
my response to Geof.
The 'Age of Consent' is indeed variable, and could indeed be set to what I
consider to be a ridiculously low number, lets say 6, in a particular
state, should the citizens of that state allow it. Of course, in that
case, I would move to a different state with a law on the books more to my
liking. The 10th Amendment allows each state to set these laws.
> It should also be obvious to any American, at least, that one can't
> readily divine the actual moral standards of a country from its laws.
> In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
> adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
> criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
> three dildos, and on and on--and yet none of these laws is enforced
> with even a tenth of the vigor which we devote to our equally
> unenforceable drug laws. Those laws represent a "face morality" which
> is substantially disengaged from the actual public morality--we could
> not begin to build enough courts or prisons to handle the number of
> willing violators of our "blue laws." So what we get is selective
> enforcement against unpopular minorities, coercion and abuse of sex
> workers, and politically-motivated prosecutions (in most jusidictions,
> you can see this in the treatment of streetwalkers, who are visible,
> vs. call girls, who are not--the actual morality being enforced here
> is NIMBY).
>
You are of course correct here also. These laws are a waste of time and
space on the books. But then again, these laws concern consenting adults,
and we are not talking about that. We are talking about an adult with a
minor child. Do you think that 'Age of Consent' laws are a bad idea?
Should children be left to there own devices against adult 'predators'?
> Best,
>
> K-Mac
>
> [CC'd to e-mail]
>
>
> ---] Michael Paul McDowell, writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell [---
> ---] Member SFWA, Inc. * Member WGA, East, Inc. [---
> ---] Author of EXILE * THE QUIET POOLS * THE BLACK FLEET CRISIS [---
> ---] Web Site: http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac [---
>
BTW: I like your work!
James Nicoll
In article <6b5ku1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael P. Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>readily divine the actual moral standards of a country from its laws.
>In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
>adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
>criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
>three dildos, and on and on--and yet none of these laws is enforced
>with even a tenth of the vigor which we devote to our equally
>unenforceable drug laws.
snip
Isn't the whole point of blue laws having something to swat
minorities with when they get out of line (Minorities used here in a
catholic sense. Catholic used here in a non-religious sense)? Eg:
a certain well known author from Utah's suggestion on how to enforce
laws pertaining to gays.
James Nicoll
--
"Don't worry. It's just a bunch of crazies who believe in only one God.
They're just this far away from atheism."
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:12:28 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
wrote:
>Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
>laws.
That's a really lousy definition.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in which children are the preferred
sexual object. Analogous in definition to zoophilia (animals). Both
are terms from psychiatry, not law, and more appropriate to
diagnosis/classification than criminal law. (By and large, the law
criminalizes acts, not states of being.)
I don't have a copy of DSM IV handy, but I believe the diagnosis of
pedophilia is founded on a biological rather than a legal definition
of "child"--that is, that "children" isn't taken to be equivalent to
"minors," but to mean "not sexually adult--prepubescent."
Biologically, most teenagers are young adults, not children.
Historically, the "extended childhood" of some Western nations is a
recent invention, and creates a number of tensions due to the clash
between social expectations and the teenagers' own drives.
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On 3 Feb 1998 14:57:32 GMT, e...@hobcs1.mt.lucent.com (Evelyn C.
Leeper) wrote:
>I find that last one hard to believe. Cite, please?
It's in the Texas criminal code (or, at least, was until recently). I
can't point you at a book or a Web site at the moment, but the next
time a specific cite passes under my eyes, I'll relay it to you.
bob...@rocketmail.com
In article <34d3e554...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
jsho...@ix.netcom.com (Jay Shorten) wrote:
>
> The Sunday Mirror alleges in today's paper [Sun Feb 1] that Arthur C.
> Clarke has said in an interview that he has had paid sexual relations
> with teenage boys. The fact that The Mirror published such an article
> on the eve of the Prince of Wales' visit to Sri Lanka (to, among other
> things, knight Mr Clarke) was reported in today's Sunday Times.
>
> to read another of his books if this were true.
>
> jsho...@ix.netcom.com
Why? He was such a good writer. Mr. Clarke has written some of the best
science fiction ever published. If you investigated the lives of every
writer and artist, you'd probably find some skeletons that you could not
live with, and therefore not be able to appreciate their artistic
abilities. And believe me there are a lot of famous people with unsavory
private and maybe even public lives.
By the way, I'm not saying that they should be able to get away with
anything because they are so gifted or so popular. You don't have to
like the person to love what they do.
bobbih
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <6b7ubt$i...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Michael P. Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
>> > adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
>> > criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
>> > three dildos,
>
>
> It's in the Texas criminal code (or, at least, was until recently). I
> can't point you at a book or a Web site at the moment, but the next
> time a specific cite passes under my eyes, I'll relay it to you.
Thanks.
It's Texas Penal Code Section 43.23(f), but it's six dildoes, not
three. And if the person can prove (how? don't ask me!) that they
didn't have intent to sell or promote them, that may get them off the
hook. The crime is "promoting" these devices, and possession of more
than six is "presumed to possess them with intent to promote." The
statute specifically notes that medical, psychiatric, etc., reasons
constitute an affirmative defense.
http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/codes/pe004300-002300.html
Ray Ciscon
In article <6b7ubr$i...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, K-...@worldnet.att.net
(Michael P. Kube-McDowell) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:12:28 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
> wrote:
>
> >Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
> >laws.
>
> That's a really lousy definition.
>
Okay. My definition is lousy. How about this. Re-read my posts, and in
place of Pedophelia, read 'Adult who likes to have sex with physically or
mentally immature people, aka children'.
Arguing the relative value of a definition, especially in this case,
verges on sophistry.
All that I'm trying to say is that having sex with kids is wrong! Can you
at least agree with that?
d
Brad Templeton
>In article <34D56509...@ecom.net>, jfoyt <jf...@ecom.net> wrote:
>>Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay? As for
I didn't know. I had no reason to care. The issue is the allegation that
he claimed that "most of them" were past puberty, which indicates that
some number were not.
That's the parth that perhaps should be disturbing. If true, he got to do
this by having money and power.
Money and power that we (fandom) gave him in exchange for his writing.
Not that it makes him a lesser writer. But there are many who believe,
for example, that medical results gained from unethical medial experiments
should be discarded, even if it can save more lives than were harmed in
the unethical experiments, simply because it sends the message that the
end will not justify the means, even if the means are already done.
I see an analogy here to any who might boycott Clarke the writer for
what Clarke the man is alleged to have done.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. in...@clari.net
The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,400,000 paid sbscrbrs.) http://www.clari.net/brad/
BL Young
d wrote:
nothing!
Glad you were brave enough to write your proper email address, d...@c.com
Ever forget about the term "header"? Do you think you are truly
anonymous?
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.133.147.54
> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:33:14 -0600
If you really want to speak up, then please do so. We are listening.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Young CANADA blyoung AT bigfoot DOT com
---------------------------------------------------------
Visit these webpages! Everybody else is doing it!
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7118 Science Fiction
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/6568 Hawkwind
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Track/6878 IFHL
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On 3 Feb 1998 20:37:48 GMT, e...@hobcs1.mt.lucent.com (Evelyn C.
Leeper) wrote:
>It's Texas Penal Code Section 43.23(f), but it's six dildoes, not
>three.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the cite.
It's a silly law, whatever the number and whatever the intent.
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:51:33 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
wrote:
>Okay. My definition is lousy. How about this. Re-read my posts, and in
>place of Pedophelia, read 'Adult who likes to have sex with physically or
>mentally immature people, aka children'.
How did "mentally" get in there? I can find you plenty of examples of
24-year-old men and women--heck, of almost any age--who are "mentally
immature" or "emotionally immature."
>Arguing the relative value of a definition, especially in this case,
>verges on sophistry.
Thinking that using the right words matters is, I suspect, an
occupational hazard for writers.
>All that I'm trying to say is that having sex with kids is wrong! Can you
>at least agree with that?
If "kids" means "pre-pubescent human beings," sure. It gets a lot more
complicated when you try to include the post-pubescent age cohort.
Young adults have been known to willingly have sex with each other,
without much regard to the legal age of consent. They've also been
known to willingly have sex with older adults--high school girls with
college boys (and beyond), high school boys with "Mrs. Robinson"--even
Mr. Robinson. These may not be the best life choices, but I don't
think the law exists to protect us from making bad choices. Above the
age of consent--and I admit we could have a long and heated argument
about where that should be set--my only substantive issue is coercion.
(And I don't count offering someone money as coercion.)
Best,
K-Mac
P.S. I don't believe the Mirror's accusations about Clarke, so this
is--for me, at least--a strictly academic/philosophical discussion.
Joseph Askew
Ray Ciscon (rci...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > >Because if he chooses to do it with minors of any age or sex, it's a
: > >shame, and illegal in most parts of the world.
: > Except that the meaning of "minors" is a variable, and it requires a
: > fair amount of cultural imperialism to conclude that one's local
: > standards ought to apply everywhere to everyone.
: The 'Age of Consent' is indeed variable, and could indeed be set to what I
: consider to be a ridiculously low number, lets say 6, in a particular
: state, should the citizens of that state allow it. Of course, in that
: case, I would move to a different state with a law on the books more to my
: liking. The 10th Amendment allows each state to set these laws.
Just to prove the world is a big place and doesn't end where the
jurisdiction of the 10th Amendment does, the Prophet Muhammed, as
I have pointed out before around here, married his last wife when
he was quite old. Into his Sixties I think. She wasn't quiet as
old as he was. In fact while there is some debate over just how
old she was the best guess is that she was nine. Taken from her
game in the backyard and placed on Muhammed's lap. She took her
toys to his tent. This has traditional served to set the lower
age of consent in Islamic societies (of which neither the US nor
Sri Lanka, obviously, is one) and is the way it is determined in
fun places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Islamic law even
says you don't have to ask a girl who she wants to marry as long
as she hasn't reached puberty yet.
I suggest you don't move to Saudi Arabia. Mind you you did pay for,
in a generous sense, the repacement of the King of Kuwait on his
throne. With his wide rumoured preference for pre-pubescent Pakistani
girls. In fact he is rumoured to have a Minister in charge of providing
him a new one every Thursday. But that might just be a nasty rumour.
Rather like the Clarke allegations.
: > It should also be obvious to any American, at least, that one can't
: > readily divine the actual moral standards of a country from its laws.
: > In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
: > adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
: > criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
: > three dildos, and on and on--and yet none of these laws is enforced
: > with even a tenth of the vigor which we devote to our equally
: > unenforceable drug laws.
Now you should live in my home state. Which doesn't have any laws I
know of against adultery, homosexuality, oral or anal sex and the
situation on prostitution is a little hazy. No laws on dildos I know
of either (but then I'm not sure how I would hear about that law).
Better yet, from an enforcement point of view, marijuana possesion
gets punished with an on-the-spot fine and no conviction recorded.
I think it is $50 for three or fewer plants. Recently a friend of
my little brother's was busted. The policeman apologised for bothering
him but said they had a complaint and were required to investigate.
But they nicely left him his growing lights.
Joseph
--
Kung Hei Fat Choi
ValHallen
Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> In article <6b5ku1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael P. Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In most American states, there are laws on the books criminalizing
> > adultery, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing oral or anal sex,
> > criminalizing prostitution, criminalizing the possession of more than
> > three dildos,
>
In Tasmania (though I am not sure about dildos) gay sex, oral sex and
adultery are definitely illegal.
------------------------------------------------------------
In quiet solitude or blasting across the alkaline flats in a
jet powered, monkey navigated .... it goes on & on like this.
------------------------------------------------------------
ValHallen
Stevens wrote:
> Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
> >
> > jfoyt wrote in message <34D56509...@ecom.net>...
> > >Uhm, is there anyone on this NG who ISN'T aware that Clarke is gay?
> >
> > Someone wanna tell me why I should care what he does in his bedroom?
>
> I did not know that Clarke was gay. Fact is, I _still_ don't,
> though I guess I'm now aware that some people think they do.
>
> And, as P&SC implies, I can't imagine a reason I should care.
I wasn't aware either and I ALSO couldn't care less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In quiet solitude or blasting across the alkaline flats in a
jet powered, monkey navigated .... it goes on & on like this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
G Kay
In article <6b7ubr$i...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, K-...@worldnet.att.net
(Michael P. Kube-McDowell) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:12:28 -0600, rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon)
> wrote:
>
> >Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
> >laws.
>
> That's a really lousy definition.
>
> Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in which children are the preferred
> sexual object. Analogous in definition to zoophilia (animals). Both
> are terms from psychiatry, not law, and more appropriate to
> diagnosis/classification than criminal law. (By and large, the law
> criminalizes acts, not states of being.)
>
> I don't have a copy of DSM IV handy, but I believe the diagnosis of
> pedophilia is founded on a biological rather than a legal definition
> of "child"--that is, that "children" isn't taken to be equivalent to
> "minors," but to mean "not sexually adult--prepubescent."
> Biologically, most teenagers are young adults, not children.
> Historically, the "extended childhood" of some Western nations is a
> recent invention, and creates a number of tensions due to the clash
> between social expectations and the teenagers' own drives.
>
> Best,
>
> K-Mac
K-Mac's pretty much right here, to my mind, as is his wont. I'll add a
couple of things. One is that we're still begging the question in these
definitions of what 'sex' is (as in 'having sex', not in 'gender') ... and
the degree to which this is tricky is embodied (as it were) pretty
compellingly these days by the discussions of Bill Clinton's -alleged- view
(also allegedly shared by well-known science fiction author Newt Gingrich)
that fellatio isn't adultery because it isn't having sex.
K-Mac's also right to note the distinction between conditions and actions,
and we all know (I hope) the quagmire the law gets into when it attempts to
achieve fixed definitions in certain spheres. The most cursory acquaintance
with the history of the attempts to define 'obscenity' will make this
point.
And I also agree on the issue of 'extended childhood' ... a great deal has
been written about the relatively recent emergence of a 'state' of
childhood with specific laws and mores attached to it. This
infantilization/protection of young people is actually fascinating in many
ways and creates (for novelists working with history) all sorts of sexual
culture shocks, the most famous perhaps being that Shakespeare's Juliet is
12 years old. K-Mac's observations about the tensions emerging can be
augmented by noting that the increasing length of 'childhood' cuts
-directly- against biology, since puberty (in girls) appears to be
occurring in the western world (on average) almost two years earlier than
it did even150 years ago (theories largely focus on diet and nutrition).
BUT I'll add a caveat that might be applicable (though not without
ambiguity) to the discussion of Arthur C. Clarke. We all live and function
within our society. To note that the mores were different once, on issues
such as paedophilia (viz, as every always mentions, Socratic Athens ...
though this too is easy to misunderstand, and tends to be) is to partly
miss the point. We must avoid the error of judging earlier people by our
current standards (the Thomas Jefferson-owned-slaves issue, or
Socrates-slept-with-young-Alkibiades) but we -can- judge people living
today by standards they can be expected to KNOW. Date rape codes on college
campuses may be imbecilic in some instances, but everyone who knows them
can fairly be expected to comply with them - no one, to my knowledge, has
ever raised civil disobedience in this instance. (Am I wrong, it would be
interesting to hear.)
As a final note, where Clarke may complicate this (and I am saying 'may'
because the sources for this story are still only those of wretched repute)
is in this way: what happens if someone deliberately settles in a community
where local mores are more congenial to his nature. Should he (or she) be
judged by the standards of the -originating- society, or by those of the
one where he's settled?
GGK
--
Do note the 'nospam' in my return address if replying.
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <rciscon-0302...@chi-il24-03.ix.netcom.com>,
rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) writes:
>
> Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
> being the lowest I'm aware of.
>
>>
>> I think a number of people are operating under different
>> premises.
>>
>> I'll contend that any degradation or exploitation of anyone,
>> but particularly children, is "evil". That's about as far
>> as I want to go with blanket statements....
>>
>> Anyone who can say "paedophillia is bad" doesn't seem to
>> ghave thought much about the subject.
>
> How much thought does the subject need? As an adult, I know that having
> sex with minors is illegal. It's not just the law, it's a good idea.
>
is not something you can condemn anyone for. Anyone could have the
misfortune to be that way.
> I don't care if someone forces a minor to have sex, or seduces them into
> thinking it's alright and therefore consensual. Sex with minors is WRONG!
> Minors, on average, do not have the maturity or reasoning power to make
> these kinds of decisions themselves. That's why we have these laws.
>
Perhaps some thought should be given to some 'universal' standard
on this. The age of consent varies from place to place and sex to
sex. Many places allow for *marriage* prior to the age of consent.
So, when we say "minors" what are we talking about ? Wne we say "law",
whose law are we talking about ? There is no universal code that I am
aware of. I understand that Australia has changed its laws in recent
years so that what is illegal for an Aussie at home is illegal for them
wherever they go and under whatever other law may pertain. [VERY loosely
put]. This is a laudable attempt, at least.
> Say for example
>> some one is "born" (note the quotes) with this inclianation
>> (paedophillia), but never, ever, practices it or exploits
>> a child (for whatever reason). Are they "bad" ? I don't
>> think so.
>
> No the person in this example is 'good'. Everyone alive has, as
> ex-president Jimmy Carter reffered to as "Lust in my heart". But not
> everyone gives in to it. I am a married man, but I am also a normal
> heterosexual male. Genetic instinct makes me 'lust' after the opposite sex
> often, but it is my civilized intellect and my 'love' for my wife that
> keeps me faithful.
>
Okay, that is really all I was trying to say. You can't fault someone
for their inclinations (*whatever* they are!) only for the way in which
they may be expressed.
>>
>> Is "Mrs. Robinson" from "The Graduate" considered "bad" ?
>
> I would consider her bad, because if I remember correctly, she was married
> at the time. She made a vow of fidelity to her husband, and broke it.
>
Agreed. But not exactly a "censured" figure.....
>>
>> Lets find out what we are talking about, not just declaim
>> from different vocabularies...
>>
> This is not a heavy intellectual issue. Messing around sexually with
> minors is wrong. Only members of NAMBLA, or totally whacked-out liberals
> would argue on this point!
>
I don't know what NAMBLA is.
Nobody has called me liberal before. <grin>
And *yes*, "messing around sexually with minors is wrong".
Now define "minor". Define "messing around sexualy". So there is
something to discuss......
If you pick the harshest set, then something like 95% of the human
race are going to be in the 'guilty' set.
If you draw to fine a brush, you allow immense damage to innocents.
If you draw to coarse a brush, you allow immense damage to innocents.
Until we have some relatively solid information about events and ages,
that have some validity (substance) behind them, then I think that
any cry of "paedophile" is meaningless. That does *not* mean it shouldn't
be investigated.
Nevertheless, I would suspect the newspaper as, had I been either the
reporter or editor, I would have waited until *after* the knighthood
in order to do maximum discredit to all concerned (government, throne,
etc..) had I had anything of any substance.
For something with 'no substance' the maximum damage would be obtained
by dropping the shoe *before* the event. By 'posphoning' it, the crown,
government and Clarke all loose *either way*.
It is my belief that this is more political than real. When I hear
some solid information, then I might think about censure....
In the meantime, it is just a scurrilious attack. Nothing more.
Geoff....
PMccutc103
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of blue laws having something to swat
>minorities with when they get out of line (Minorities used here in a
>catholic sense. Catholic used here in a non-religious sense)?
That's one point. Another is that since these laws are rarely enforced, most
people don't give a shit about them. But those who think these laws are great
tend to put up a big howl if somebody proposes their elimination. So if a
Georgia state senator proposes eliminating the law against sodomy, that senator
can look forward to some people saying "Senator X wants government to endorse
sodomy!"
The way to get rid of these laws is to do it as a part of an overhaul of the
whole criminal code. That's what happened in Illinois in (I think) the
seventies -- the entire criminal code was revised rather extensively, and when
the dust settled, it turned out that Illinois didn't have a law against sodomy
or other "unnatural" sexual practices when performed between consenting adults.
Nobody has ever cared enough to put such restrictions back in.
>Eg:
>a certain well known author from Utah's suggestion on how to enforce
>laws pertaining to gays.
Since this is rec.arts.sf.written, I assume this author's initials are OSC? In
any case, what did this author suggest regarding gays?
________________________
Pete McCutchen
James Nicoll
In article <19980206144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
> jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>
>>Eg:
>>a certain well known author from Utah's suggestion on how to enforce
>>laws pertaining to gays.
>
>Since this is rec.arts.sf.written, I assume this author's initials are OSC? In
>any case, what did this author suggest regarding gays?
If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
Joseph Askew
Tom Swift (toms...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
: > If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
: >the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
: >the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
: >to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
I know people who supported liberalisation at the time, but haven't
coped too well with Gay Pride. Some of them have suggested that a
less tolerant option would have been better - decriminalization for
instance, rather than legalization. Had the public at the time seen
the result of legalization do you think a majority would have in
fact supported it? So he might be unpopular with many, but he is
not alone in his opinion.
: This is interesting since there is such a strong undertone to many of his
: writings that have made we wonder over the years. I'm speaking of the
: "special relationships" that develop between grown men and young boys.
Well if this isn't stirring the pot, I wonder about the claim that
heterosexuals who are homophobic are really gay themselves. I mean
what sort of world view do people who make this claim have? Do they
really think that gay bashing is entirely a gay problem (between
gays who are in denial and those who are not)? That the homosexual
community is both the victim and perpetrator of homophobia? Dunno
about the common sense of that, much less the PC value.
PMccutc103
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
>the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
>the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
>to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
>
>
I am hesitant to criticize Mr. Card for views which he may not hold -- you
admit that you are relying on memory here, and seem to admit to some
possibility of error. And it seems from the context that you don't espouse
such views. So I'm not quite sure whom I'm addressing, but I just have to make
one point: such a proposal would mean punishing conduct only when the people
who engage in such conduct advocate a certain political position.
This strikes at the very heart what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Damien R. Sullivan
rci...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) wrote:
>(Geoffrey Charles Marshall) wrote:
>
>> Define paedophilia.
>Pedophilia: Sex, consensual or not, with a minor as determined by local
>laws. Here in the US, 'Age of Consent' varies from state to state, with 16
>being the lowest I'm aware of.
Some states, it's 14, I think. Some countries, it might be (or have
been) 21. Your condemnation of pedophilia degenerates to "obey your
local law, whatever it is!" Sure.
And given this, Clarke may not be a pedophile. If the age in Sri Lanka
is less than the age of the boy? If Sri Lanka doesn't have an age of
consent?
And Romeo's Juliet was 12, they say. Hmmm.
>This is not a heavy intellectual issue. Messing around sexually with
>minors is wrong. Only members of NAMBLA, or totally whacked-out liberals
>would argue on this point!
And the definition of 'minor' is so clear-cut and obvious.
-xx- ROU Bibliovore X-)
"Foreign aid could be delivered by ICBM."
-- Larry Niven, "The Roentgen Standard"
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.written, article <88678652...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: In article <19980206144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,: >
: >>Eg:
: >>a certain well known author from Utah's suggestion on how to enforce
: >>laws pertaining to gays.
: >
: >Since this is rec.arts.sf.written, I assume this author's initials
: >are OSC? In any case, what did this author suggest regarding gays?
: If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
: the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
: the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
: to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
I seem to recall an article, printed in a Mormon paper, which
suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
-- LJM
James Nicoll
In article <6bm0af$kqg$1...@haus.efn.org>,
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>I seem to recall an article, printed in a Mormon paper, which
>suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
>presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
>kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
>try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
Hmmm. Wasn't there also an SF story where one of the
Caribbean islands had been turned into a quarantine zone for
people with AIDS? One assumes also for HIV+ folks as well,
or there'd be little point.
James Nicoll
In article <19980207210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
> jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
>>the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
>>the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
>>to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
>>
>
>admit that you are relying on memory here, and seem to admit to some
>possibility of error. And it seems from the context that you don't espouse
>such views. So I'm not quite sure whom I'm addressing, but I just have to make
>one point: such a proposal would mean punishing conduct only when the people
>who engage in such conduct advocate a certain political position.
>
>This strikes at the very heart what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
I don't live in the US and am certainly not an expert on the US
constitution but it seems to me that other parts of accepted behavior
by the legal authorities there appear to an outsider to violate the US
constitution: civil forfeiture vs the 4th amendment, for example. Given
that that behavior exists, other apparent violations would seem possible.
No, I am not advocating this as a good or reasonable thing to do.
Of course in Canada if it is really necessary* to withdraw rights
from a group, our constitution includes a legal means by which that can be
done.
James Nicoll
*To protect a low-utility language, say. You could use it to take the property
away from a group of Asians as well, although we didn't need a constituion
to do that last time.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.written, article <88704455...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>, James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: In article <6bm0af$kqg$1...@haus.efn.org>,
: Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
: >
: >I seem to recall an article, printed in a Mormon paper, which
: >suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
: >presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
: >kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
: >try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
: Hmmm. Wasn't there also an SF story where one of the
: Caribbean islands had been turned into a quarantine zone for
: people with AIDS? One assumes also for HIV+ folks as well,
: or there'd be little point.
Reading in to what Mr. Card wrote, I gather that his believe is
that if those who are gay were taken out of circulation, there
would be no problem. If this was, in fact, implicit in the
article I mentioned, I can only say that I believe him to be
wrong on several counts.
I do think, by the way, that there is a difference between "a
story," which most people would take to mean a piece of fiction,
and "an article," which most people would take as non-fiction,
at least from the author's point of view.
-- LJM
James Nicoll
In article <6bvp0k$9p6$1...@haus.efn.org>,
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.written, article <88704455...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>, James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>: In article <6bm0af$kqg$1...@haus.efn.org>,
>: Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>: >
>: >I seem to recall an article, printed in a Mormon paper, which
>: >suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
>: >presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
>: >kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
>: >try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
>
>: Hmmm. Wasn't there also an SF story where one of the
>: Caribbean islands had been turned into a quarantine zone for
>: people with AIDS? One assumes also for HIV+ folks as well,
>: or there'd be little point.
>
>Reading in to what Mr. Card wrote, I gather that his believe is
>that if those who are gay were taken out of circulation, there
>would be no problem. If this was, in fact, implicit in the
>article I mentioned, I can only say that I believe him to be
>wrong on several counts.
>
>I do think, by the way, that there is a difference between "a
>story," which most people would take to mean a piece of fiction,
>and "an article," which most people would take as non-fiction,
>at least from the author's point of view.
Well, yes. There should have been an ObSF up there, since
it isn't clear to me that the opinions of SF authors other than
expressed in their fiction belong here.
I did get the sense from _Folk of the Fringe_ that I wouldn't
much like being the only non-Mormon around Card's characters.
James Nicoll
k...@socrates.berkeley.edu
>: >
>: >[somebody asked] what did [Card] suggest regarding gays?
>
>: If memory serves: keep the laws on the books, turn a blind eye to
>: the ones who remain closeted and out of sight of proper folks and swat
>: the visible ringleaders who advocate liberaliztion of the laws pertaining
>: to gays or changes in the acceptability of gay people.
>
>suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
>presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
>kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
>try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
I've never heard anything like what Loren describes. If we're talking
about Card's essay in _Sunstone_ (a Mormon magazine), February 1990,
then James Nicoll's memory is accurate.
Card's words were <holding my nose> "Laws against homosexual behavior
should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced
against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be
used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly
violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted
to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Graham Wills
k...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Card's words were <holding my nose> "Laws against homosexual behavior
> should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced
> against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be
> used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly
> violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted
> to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
Card doesn't by any chance live in Maine, does he?
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Nathalie Mège
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote (écrivait) :
> Reading in to what Mr. Card wrote, I gather that his believe is
> that if those who are gay were taken out of circulation, there
> would be no problem.
What? You mean that's *not* true? ;-)
Nathalie Mège
Nathalie Mège
Blindedly, James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote
> >I seem to recall an article, printed in a Mormon paper, which
> >suggested that everyone would be happier and healthier (including,
> >presumably, those who were homosexual) if gays were rounded up and
> >kept in camps for their own good. If there is any interest, I will
> >try to locate a copy of the article so I can provide a cite.
Obviously, that was a misunderstanding. They had read gays love 'camp',
and only wanted to be good to them. :-)))
Wonder what they found for lesbians? Concentration kitchens? The problem
is, what will lesbians do with the knives?
<k...@socrates.berkeley.edu> also wrote
> Card's words were <holding my nose> "Laws against homosexual behavior
> should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced
> against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be
> used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly
> violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted
> to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
Rings a bell, eh?
"Laws against Jews should remain on the books..."
Who said science fiction was a progressist genre?
Nathalie Mège
Nathalie Mège
Alan Gore <ag...@primenet.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
> characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
Dear Alan, how come the subject was paedophilia and you switch to
homosexuality?
Nathalie Mège
Nathalie Mège
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
Hey! Not young girls?
Nathalie Mège
Nathalie Mège
Mitch Wagner <thri...@ibm.net> wrote (écrivait) :
> ag...@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote:
>
> >So what does this have to do with his writing? If you don't like gay
> >characters, I can only recall Clarke using one ("Imperial Earth").
>
> Being gay and being a pedophile are NOT the same thing. Most gays--gay
> Americans at least--only have sex with consenting adults, same as
> heterosexuals.
What do you mean, "same as heterosexuals"? That there is no such thing
as a heterosexual paedophile? My personal experience tells me the
contrary.
Nathalie Mège
P Nielsen Hayden
I didn't write what you're quoting me as saying. Don't do this again.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
Matt Austern
nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mège) writes:
> > Card's words were <holding my nose> "Laws against homosexual behavior
> > should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced
> > against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be
> > used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly
> > violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted
> > to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
>
> Rings a bell, eh?
>
> "Laws against Jews should remain on the books..."
>
> Who said science fiction was a progressist genre?
It should be noted that this is a quote from a nonfiction article by
Card, not from any of his SF.
There are some things about Card's fiction that I find objectionable,
but I simply can't find an example of anti-gay bigotry in it. Maybe I
haven't read the relevant books, or maybe I haven't noticed what was
right under my nose, or maybe it really isn't there.
Andy Mulhearn
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:37 +0100, nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mège)
interrupted a boring presentation with :
If you reread that you'll see that Mitch did not imply that there are
no heterosexual paedophiles, just that because a man or woman is gay
does not make them also paedophile. Or was this a troll?
Andy
"this message was bought to you by a creature from the blag lagoon"
Oh dear, X is very, very bad.
Julie Stampnitzky
On 16 Feb 1998, Matt Austern wrote:
>
> There are some things about Card's fiction that I find objectionable,
> but I simply can't find an example of anti-gay bigotry in it. Maybe I
> haven't read the relevant books, or maybe I haven't noticed what was
> right under my nose, or maybe it really isn't there.
Hmm, I've been meaning to reread _Ships of Earth_...Zdorab is a
sympathetic character, would you say that he was eventually "cured" by
marriage? Plenty of gays might object to that idea. But maybe I'm
misremembering.
Julie Stampnitzky Keeper, http://neskaya.darkover.org
John Hollery
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:35 +0100, nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mčge) wrote:
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>
>> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
>
>Hey! Not young girls?
>
>Nathalie Mčge
Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
tendencies ?
IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
Michael Roberts
John Hollery wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:35 +0100, nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mège) wrote:
>
> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >
> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
> >
> >Hey! Not young girls?
> >
>
> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
> tendencies ?
>
> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
1/ Define "boy"
2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove '0spam' from my address
+====================================================================+
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <34EACA...@0spam.laserfx.com>, News...@0spam.laserfx.com wrote:
>John Hollery wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:35 +0100, nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mège) wrote:
>>
>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>> >
>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
Once again, I didn't write the line which I've underscored with carets above.
I mentioned this before, and got back yes-you-did mail from "Nathalie Mège."
I'm getting a little annoyed with the number of posts that perpetuate this.
Matt Austern
Julie Stampnitzky <jsta...@ymail.yu.edu> writes:
I would say, I'm afraid, that I haven't read that book.
I don't deny that some of Card's fiction might exhibit anti-gay
bigotry. I just didn't see it in the books of his that I've read.
Alex
John Hollery wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:35 +0100, nm...@newedge.fr (Nathalie Mège) wrote:
>
> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >
> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
> >
> >
> >Nathalie Mège
>
> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
> tendencies ?
>
> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
No. That should correctly be 'IOW he is RUMORED to like sex with young
boys, not girls'. Can't you guys ever speak an honest word?
But the point Nathalie made, and which none of you nazi-fundies ever
want to address is the question of heterosexual men who prey on little
girls. Why don't you condemn that too?? 99% of child abuse is
HETEROSEXUAL not gay. Yet you only speak out when a rumor surfaces that
a gay man or woman might have engaged in this behavior. Do you
condone/support the molestation of little girls by adult straight men??
Have you ever written any letters to any newsgroups or been engaged in
any way with fighting this disgusting behavior??
All child abuse is vile, no matter who does it.
--
Alex
The KKKristians are coming, find out more!
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/village/7525
Elethiomel
Michael P. Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> These may not be the best life choices, but I don't
> think the law exists to protect us from making bad choices. Above the
> age of consent--and I admit we could have a long and heated argument
> about where that should be set--my only substantive issue is coercion.
> (And I don't count offering someone money as coercion.)
If the someone is very, very poor, I'd say it is debatable. I'm counting
it as coercion. I agree with the rest.
--
Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel
Anna esta' en la linea
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
>If the someone is very, very poor, I'd say it is debatable. I'm counting
>it as coercion.
Many of the jobs available to people with no skills are (a) physical
and (b) unpleasant enough in one respect or another to be unlikely to
be someone's first choice of career. Digging ditches, mucking out
stables, field laborer on a farm, coolie or stevedore, entry-level
jobs in mines and foundries, etc.--virtually any job where the labor
of the body is preeminent over the labors of the mind. I don't
consider offering a very, very poor person money to do such a job
"coercion," and I can't agree that making the job "sex work" changes
that equation.
Best,
K-Mac
[CC'd to e-mail]
---] Michael Paul McDowell, writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell [---
---] Member SFWA, Inc. * Member WGA, East, Inc. [---
---] Author of EXILE * THE QUIET POOLS * THE BLACK FLEET CRISIS [---
---] Web Site: http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac [---
Donald Franklin
>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>> >
>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
>> >
>> >Hey! Not young girls?
>> >
>> >Nathalie Mège
>>
>> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
>> tendencies ?
>>
>> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
>
>1/ Define "boy"
A young man ?
>2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
Dont know. Morals and decency apply everywhere, or didnt you know that ?
Having sexual relations with young men/girls by adults is an immoral act.
>3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
>statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
statement.
That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
Get real dude.
Michael Roberts
Donald Franklin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
> <News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
>
> >> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >> >
> >> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
> >> >
> >> >Hey! Not young girls?
> >> >
> >> >Nathalie Mège
> >>
> >> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
> >> tendencies ?
> >>
> >> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
> >
>
> >1/ Define "boy"
>
> A young man ?
Could you be more specific like quoteing an age? A young man could be
anyone between puberty and legal adulthood [18 to 21 depending on
jurisdiction].
>
> >2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
>
> Dont know. Morals and decency apply everywhere, or didnt you know that ?
True but the law is specific to each jurosdiction. In Canada 14 year
olds can consent to sex, in Japan 13 year olds. This is why the
question of the AOC in Siri Lanka is relavant.
>
> Having sexual relations with young men/girls by adults is an immoral act.
I agree with you however, the law in Canada states that one you are 14,
you are allowed to make your own decisions.
>
> >3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
> >statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
>
> I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
> all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
>
> No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
> statement.
I inferred that - apologies if I was wrong.
>
> That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
A pederast is one who has sex with pre-pubescents [of either gender].
The age(s) of the person(s) Clarke is alleged to have had sexual
relations with is not mentioned so we can not know for sure if he is a
pedophile or a pederast.
While pedophillia is illegal and imorral in ALL jurisdictions, and
soundly condemned by all [including me]; pederasty - sexual
relationships with youths - is LEGAL in many jurisdictions.
jason reilly
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:15:07 GMT, don...@sprynet.com (Donald Franklin) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
><News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
>
>>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>>> >
>>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
>>> >
>>> >Hey! Not young girls?
>>> >
>>> >Nathalie Mège
>>>
>>> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
>>> tendencies ?
>>>
>>> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
>>
>
>>1/ Define "boy"
>
>A young man ?
>
>>2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
>
>Dont know. Morals and decency apply everywhere, or didnt you know that ?
>
>Having sexual relations with young men/girls by adults is an immoral act.
>
>>3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
>>statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
>
>
>I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
>all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
>
>No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
>statement.
>
>That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
>
Indeed so. Most of the studies conducted show that most pederasts and
pedophiles molest young boys at one time or another, making the vast majority
of them homosexuals, not heterosexuals, by defintion.
Magenta
deal...@interserve.com (jason reilly) doth speak:
>Indeed so. Most of the studies conducted show that most pederasts and
>pedophiles molest young boys at one time or another, making the vast majority
>of them homosexuals, not heterosexuals, by defintion.
Only to someone who does not know the definition of "homosexual",
"heterosexual", "pederast", or "pedophile". Since you have no clue
what those words mean it is easy for you to make up any definitions
you would like.
--
+----- Peace & Love, ----+------- Magenta77 (at) AOL (dot) com ---+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ | "There are none so blind |
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| | as they that will not see..." |
|_________ _/ __________|______________________--Jonathan Swift _|
John De Salvio
In article <34EF5B...@0spam.laserfx.com>, News...@0spam.laserfx.com wrote:
> Donald Franklin wrote:
> >
> > >1/ Define "boy"
> >
> > A young man ?
>
> Could you be more specific like quoteing an age? A young man could be
> anyone between puberty and legal adulthood [18 to 21 depending on
> jurisdiction].
To me, a young man could be 35. I'm 56.
> I agree with you however, the law in Canada states that one you
are 14,
> you are allowed to make your own decisions.
> >
> > >3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
> > >statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
> >
> > I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
> > all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
> >
> > No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
> > statement.
>
> I inferred that - apologies if I was wrong.
> >
> > That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
>
> A pederast is one who has sex with pre-pubescents [of either gender].
I though that was a pedophile. As far as I am aware, pederasts
have sex with post-pubescent boys.
> The age(s) of the person(s) Clarke is alleged to have had sexual
> relations with is not mentioned so we can not know for sure if he is a
> pedophile or a pederast.
> While pedophillia is illegal and imorral in ALL jurisdictions, and
> soundly condemned by all [including me]; pederasty - sexual
> relationships with youths - is LEGAL in many jurisdictions.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Alex
jason reilly wrote:
>>snip>>
Let's take a good look at what you're attempting to do here Jason. You
have misrepresented (lied) about the facts and the results of the
studies. Nothing new. That you are willing to do this, for purely
political purposes indicates a lack of concern for the children who are
victims of child abuse. You know that 90% of abusers are straight.
You choose to ignore this, in fact to pretend otherwise, thereby giving
aid and comfort to heterosexual child abusers in order to support you
political convictions, over the broken bodies of these suffering
children. I suppose you think it's worth their suffering to advance YOUR
political argument against equal rights for gays.
Shame on you.
John Moreno
In rec.arts.sf.written John De Salvio <des...@monitor.net> wrote:
> <34EF5B...@0spam.laserfx.com>, News...@0spam.laserfx.com wrote:
>
> > Donald Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > >1/ Define "boy"
> > >
> > > A young man ?
> >
> > Could you be more specific like quoteing an age? A young man
> > could be anyone between puberty and legal adulthood [18 to 21 depending
> > on jurisdiction].
>
> To me, a young man could be 35. I'm 56.
To someone of 95-100 you'd still be a young man with more than half
you're life still ahead of you. Now a boy - that would be somebody
that's only 35.
If they intend to continue the discussion they REALLY need to define the
terms (and it would be nice if they learned to keep the attributions
straight).
--
John Moreno
John De Salvio
In article <34ef317...@news.interserv.com>, deal...@interserve.com
(jason reilly) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:15:07 GMT, don...@sprynet.com (Donald Franklin) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
> ><News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >>> >
> >>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
> >>> >
> >>> >Hey! Not young girls?
> >>> >
> >>> >Nathalie Mège
> >>>
> >>> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
> >>> tendencies ?
> >>>
> >>> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
> >>
> >
> >>1/ Define "boy"
> >
> >A young man ?
> >
> >>2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
> >
> >Dont know. Morals and decency apply everywhere, or didnt you know that ?
> >
> >Having sexual relations with young men/girls by adults is an immoral act.
> >
> >>3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
> >>statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
> >
> >
> >I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
> >all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
> >
> >No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
> >statement.
> >
> >That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
> >
>
>
> Indeed so. Most of the studies conducted show that most pederasts and
> pedophiles molest young boys at one time or another, making the vast majority
> of them homosexuals, not heterosexuals, by defintion.
Hey, dude, that's not good enough. Your word means bullshit here.
Cite the actual sources for your "Most of the studies."
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <34ef1935...@news.sprynet.com>, don...@sprynet.com (Donald Franklin) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
><News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
>
>>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>>> >
>>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
No, I didn't. I didn't write that, and I'm tired of being quoted as having
done so. Stop it.
Michael Roberts
John De Salvio wrote:
>
> In article <34EF5B...@0spam.laserfx.com>, News...@0spam.laserfx.com wrote:
>
> > Donald Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A young man ?
> >
> > anyone between puberty and legal adulthood [18 to 21 depending on
> > jurisdiction].
>
> To me, a young man could be 35. I'm 56.
> are 14,
> > you are allowed to make your own decisions.
> > >
> > > >statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
> > >
> > > I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that by
> > > all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
> > >
> > > No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
> > > statement.
> >
> > >
> >
>
> I though that was a pedophile. As far as I am aware, pederasts
> have sex with post-pubescent boys.
>
> > The age(s) of the person(s) Clarke is alleged to have had sexual
> > relations with is not mentioned so we can not know for sure if he is a
> > pedophile or a pederast.
> > While pedophillia is illegal and imorral in ALL jurisdictions, and
> > soundly condemned by all [including me]; pederasty - sexual
> > relationships with youths - is LEGAL in many jurisdictions.
John, thank you for pointing out the error in my post. I did mean
pedophile as can be seen for the context.
Joel Rosenberg
I think, perhaps, you might want to try to do some research on the matter.
You'd find that most pedophiles are, in most of their sexual behavior,
heterosexual — I think an actual majority are married, in fact. Gay
pedophiles — defined as those men whose usual preference is for adult males
but who also molest children — are a tiny, tiny minority.
jason reilly wrote in message <34ef317...@news.interserv.com>...
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:15:07 GMT, don...@sprynet.com (Donald Franklin)
wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
>><News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>>>> >
>>>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
>>>> >
>>>> >Hey! Not young girls?
>>>> >
>>>> >Nathalie Mège
>>>>
>>>> Because Clarke has long been rumored to be a homosexual with pederastic
>>>> tendencies ?
>>>>
>>>> IOW he likes to have sex with young boys, not girls.
>>>
>>
>>>1/ Define "boy"
>>
>>A young man ?
>>
>>>2/ What is the AOC for people in Sri Lanka?
>>
>>Dont know. Morals and decency apply everywhere, or didnt you know that ?
>>
>>Having sexual relations with young men/girls by adults is an immoral act.
>>
>>>3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young boys [your
>>>statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
>>
>>
>>I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all, just that
by
>>all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
>>
>>No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
>>statement.
>>
>>That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
>>
>
>
Joel Rosenberg
It's definitely a thing. But I don't know that it's a bad thing — I don't
know of any children who appear to have been permanently injured by
consensual sexual contact with their peers. My guess is that the actual
damaging thing is duress — explicit or implied — and that that is the
problem with supposed consensual sexual contact between adults and minors.
It's a similar thing, I suppose, with those heterosexual adults who have
tried their han -- err, make that experimented with homosexual encounters,
and found that it was not to their tast -- not their cup of tea.
Everybody I know who has reported of such a thing hasn't found the
experience scarring, but just not something that they wanted to do again.
It seems it's not the sex act, but the duress, which is the thing that
hurts.
Diane wrote in message <34f0e682...@news.slip.net>...
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:33:47 GMT, la...@slip.net (Diane) wrote:
>
>>Now for the record I'm personally inclined to think that sex with
>>children is a thing, ...
>
>Oh - that should have read "bad thing". Darn!
>
>
>
J. Northwood
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:58:01 GMT, deal...@interserve.com (jason
reilly) wrote:
< snip >
>Indeed so. Most of the studies conducted show that most pederasts and
>pedophiles molest young boys at one time or another, making the vast majority
>of them homosexuals, not heterosexuals, by defintion.
Not that I expect honesty, especially from someone like you, but could
you give us the cites and c.f. data from these peer-reviewed
scientific studies that bring this data to light?
What? You made it up and were parroting the lies of the radical
religious reicht? Oh, never mind, then.
John De Salvio
> John De Salvio wrote:
> >
> > In article <34EF5B...@0spam.laserfx.com>,
News...@0spam.laserfx.com wrote:
> >
> > > Donald Franklin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >1/ Define "boy"
> > > >
> > > > A young man ?
> > >
> > > Could you be more specific like quoteing an age? A young
man could be
> > > anyone between puberty and legal adulthood [18 to 21 depending on
> > > jurisdiction].
> >
> > To me, a young man could be 35. I'm 56.
> > > I agree with you however, the law in Canada states that one you
> > are 14,
> > > you are allowed to make your own decisions.
> > > >
> > > > >3/ Why is it OK to have sex with young girls and not young
boys [your
> > > > >statement "likes to have sex with young boys, not girls" implies this]?
> > > >
> > > > I didnt see where the poster implied anything like that at all,
just that by
> > > > all accounts Clarke seems to prefer boys for his sex crimes, not girls.
> > > >
> > > > No mention about it being OK to have sex with girls anywhere in that
> > > > statement.
> > >
> > > I inferred that - apologies if I was wrong.
> > > >
> > > > That makes him a Homosexual pederast in my book, Pal.
> > >
> > > A pederast is one who has sex with pre-pubescents [of either
gender].
> >
> > I though that was a pedophile. As far as I am aware, pederasts
> > have sex with post-pubescent boys.
> >
> > > The age(s) of the person(s) Clarke is alleged to have had sexual
> > > relations with is not mentioned so we can not know for sure if he is a
> > > pedophile or a pederast.
> > > While pedophillia is illegal and imorral in ALL jurisdictions, and
> > > soundly condemned by all [including me]; pederasty - sexual
> > > relationships with youths - is LEGAL in many jurisdictions.
>
> John, thank you for pointing out the error in my post. I did mean
> pedophile as can be seen for the context.
No problemo.
Now try to convince Archie Ped!
>
> +====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
> This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
> Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove '0spam' from my address
> +====================================================================+
--
John De Salvio
In article <6coief$l0s$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, "Joel Rosenberg"
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> It's definitely a thing. But I don't know that it's a bad thing — I don't
> know of any children who appear to have been permanently injured by
> consensual sexual contact with their peers. My guess is that the actual
> damaging thing is duress — explicit or implied — and that that is the
> problem with supposed consensual sexual contact between adults and minors.
> It's a similar thing, I suppose, with those heterosexual adults who have
> tried their han -- err, make that experimented with homosexual encounters,
> and found that it was not to their tast -- not their cup of tea.
>
> Everybody I know who has reported of such a thing hasn't found the
> experience scarring, but just not something that they wanted to do again.
> It seems it's not the sex act, but the duress, which is the thing that
> hurts.
OOOOOH! Now you've REALLY pissed off Arch P.
John De Salvio
In article <6co9ia$1...@news1.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
> In article <34ef1935...@news.sprynet.com>, don...@sprynet.com
(Donald Franklin) wrote:
> >On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:49:38 -0500, Michael Roberts
> ><News...@0spam.laserfx.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> >>> >
> >>> >> >Whilst I share your disgust of the practice of sex with young boys,
>
> No, I didn't. I didn't write that, and I'm tired of being quoted as having
> done so. Stop it.
The number of >'s before the quote make it obvious that you are correct.
You did NOT say it.
PMccutc103
"Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>I think, perhaps, you might want to try to do some research on the matter.
>You'd find that most pedophiles are, in most of their sexual behavior,
>heterosexual — I think an actual majority are married, in fact. Gay
>pedophiles — defined as those men whose usual preference is for adult males
>but who also molest children — are a tiny, tiny minority.
Nicely worded, Joel. Have you ever considered writing as a career?
I've seen and heard debates of this type before, and I think that part of the
disagreement lies in a general lack of clarity about how terms are being used.
Take, for example, a married man who molests boys on the side. This fellow can
have sex with women, and perhaps he even enjoys it, but his real thrill comes
from molesting boys. (We can assume that he prefers molesting boys to sex with
women; if sex with women were more fun, we'd expect him to stick to that.)
Such a man is "heterosexual" in the sense that Joel used the term -- when he's
not molesting boys, his preferred partners are women. It's also worth noting
that he's "heterosexual" in terms of his public identity.
However, such a person is also "homosexual" in the sense that his preferred
partners are people of the same sex. That is, he's a "homosexual pedophile" by
inclination. If what gives him the charge is sex with a young girl, he'd be a
"heterosexual pedophile." And I suppose that if what gave him the charge were
a young person -- sex irrelevant -- we could call him a "bisexual pedophile."
My sense is that in this argument, as in many others of this general nature,
the "pedophiles are straight" crew is referring both to overt sexual behavior
and behevior when not having sex with children, while the "pedophiles are
homosexual" crew is referring to the pedophila itself.
This is all so obvious to me, that I really can't understand why it is that the
disputants can't realize that they are talking past one another for the simple
reason that they are talking about different things.
And, just so I'm not accused of thinking something that I don't, let me make
two things clear:
1. In my view, molesting young girls is just as bad as molesting young boys.
2. The issue of pedophilia is completely irrelevant to the issues related to
gay rights.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
John Moreno
In rec.arts.sf.written Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> It's definitely a thing. But I don't know that it's a bad thing I don't
> know of any children who appear to have been permanently injured by
> consensual sexual contact with their peers. My guess is that the actual
> damaging thing is duress explicit or implied and that that is the
> problem with supposed consensual sexual contact between adults and minors.
> It's a similar thing, I suppose, with those heterosexual adults who have
> tried their han -- err, make that experimented with homosexual encounters,
> and found that it was not to their tast -- not their cup of tea.
>
> Everybody I know who has reported of such a thing hasn't found the
> experience scarring, but just not something that they wanted to do again.
> It seems it's not the sex act, but the duress, which is the thing that
> hurts.
I'd say it's more simple - psychological damage is a result of
expectations not matching reality. The inability to reconcile the two,
produces insanity. Instability or minor damage is when there is a gap,
but not a big one.
If society doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't find it acceptable,
then the person it happens to doesn't have a framework to place it in to
- how successfully they are able to reconcile what they expected to
happen with what actually did happen, determines how much damage is
done. If they just can't do it at all, they go catatonic, if they do it
completely then it just becomes a bad (or maybe not so bad depending
upon the pain/duress involved) experience that doesn't matter.
The problem with consenual sex between adults and minors, is that the
minors don't know what they are consenting to - and they can't since
part of what is going to happen is going to be the way they look back on
it years latter. And one of the big influences on how they look back on
it is how society views it, and they are too young to have yet
completely grasped just what that view is. They are buying a pig in a
poke, and if they're lucky all they'll get is a dead cat.
But you do need to rememeber that "adult" "minor" and "societies views"
are all subjective things and will vary from culture to culture.
> Diane wrote in message <34f0e682...@news.slip.net>...
> >On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:33:47 GMT, la...@slip.net (Diane) wrote:
> >
> >>Now for the record I'm personally inclined to think that sex with
> >>children is a thing, ...
> >
> >Oh - that should have read "bad thing". Darn!
--
John Moreno
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <97E850BEF46801CE.6BE59508...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) writes:
> In rec.arts.sf.written Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's definitely a thing. But I don't know that it's a bad thing I don't
>> know of any children who appear to have been permanently injured by
>> consensual sexual contact with their peers. My guess is that the actual
>> damaging thing is duress explicit or implied and that that is the
>> problem with supposed consensual sexual contact between adults and minors.
>> It's a similar thing, I suppose, with those heterosexual adults who have
>> tried their han -- err, make that experimented with homosexual encounters,
>> and found that it was not to their tast -- not their cup of tea.
>>
>> Everybody I know who has reported of such a thing hasn't found the
>> experience scarring, but just not something that they wanted to do again.
>> It seems it's not the sex act, but the duress, which is the thing that
>> hurts.
>
> I'd say it's more simple - psychological damage is a result of
> expectations not matching reality. The inability to reconcile the two,
> produces insanity. Instability or minor damage is when there is a gap,
> but not a big one.
>
> If society doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't find it acceptable,
> then the person it happens to doesn't have a framework to place it in to
> - how successfully they are able to reconcile what they expected to
> happen with what actually did happen, determines how much damage is
> done. If they just can't do it at all, they go catatonic, if they do it
> completely then it just becomes a bad (or maybe not so bad depending
> upon the pain/duress involved) experience that doesn't matter.
>
> The problem with consenual sex between adults and minors, is that the
> minors don't know what they are consenting to - and they can't since
> part of what is going to happen is going to be the way they look back on
> it years latter. And one of the big influences on how they look back on
> it is how society views it, and they are too young to have yet
> completely grasped just what that view is. They are buying a pig in a
> poke, and if they're lucky all they'll get is a dead cat.
>
> But you do need to rememeber that "adult" "minor" and "societies views"
> are all subjective things and will vary from culture to culture.
>
The reason for my response is this. The reason you give and
the explanation you make above is probably quite accurate. The
only problem I have is that you have not defined 'minor'. Now,
I'd like to take it a bit further...
Let 'minor' mean < 50 years of age. Is your paragraph still
accurate ? Yes. In fact if Clarke *had* done what was
alledged, it would apply to him and he is in his eighties.
So the only problem with your explanation is that it is not
age dependant. You just made the case that there should be
no sex. Period.
Geoff...
--
____________________________________________________________
E-Mail: Geoff C. Marshall <co...@ozemail.com.au>
No Spam please. Private correspondence only.
Please remove from all lists.
____________________________________________________________
The following should PLEASE note this;
ro...@aol.com, postm...@aol.com
ro...@hotmail.com, postm...@hotmail.com
ro...@mail-man.net, postm...@mail-man.net