Conference quark::mennotes-v1

 Face it, the kid was probably in heaven. :-)

    Yeah, and she probably didn't tear him up, much.
    %-)

    Sorry for my lack of sense of humor, but we're talking about the
    sexual abuse of a child.  
    					- Vick

.0 made no mention of abuse, only of a violation of the Canadian statues.

    
 >   Her sentence was either probation or suspended (I didn't catch which).
  
	(if this is the same case that i heard on the radio this
	 morning)

	Her sentence was suspended, and she had to contribute $500.00
	to the cost of the boys therapy. The boy has not been able
	to concentrate in school since the breakup, and has been
	depressed, thinking only of this woman and sex.
	The boy is 12 years old, and the woman met him through her
	14 year old daughter. Also I heard on the radio that the
	woman was 35 years old.

	
	kits
	
   
    

    Yes. The article is about Statutory rape of one who is too
    young to make sexual decisions.  Even if he willingly went
    along with the adult woman, she is violating a law.
    Only they know whether this was rape-against-his-will,
    or consensual sex education!
    
    	Dick
    

    ANY adult having sexual relations with an 11 year old of either sex is
    sexually abusing that child.  Consent is not an issue.
    
    						- Vick

    re .1
    Would you feel the same way if the genders were reversed. The 11-year
    old were a girl, and the adult a man? 
    If no, what do you perceive to be the difference?
    
    				herb
    

>    Would you feel the same way if the genders were reversed. The 11-year
>    old were a girl, and the adult a man? 

 Almost certainly not.

>    If no, what do you perceive to be the difference?

 I was an 11 year old boy, once. ;^) Second of all, sexual fantasies and
expectations of boys and girls are (in a general sense, no need for 
contradictory anecdotes as I could give some myself) often quite different.

    The base notes species that this note is for clips only no discussion. 
    Moderators, please move the preceeding notes.
    
    Thank you
    
    Mark O'B
    
    

    i think you have forgotten how young 11 is. In addition, 
    it seems that you do not think 11-yr old girls have the kind the sexual
    fantasies that many 11-yr old boys have. I would be interested in
    hearing some women comment on that. My guess is that many 11-yr old
    girls might have sexual fantasies about adult males. Movie stars, rock
    singers, etc.
    
    An additional point -already made- is that there is no way that an 11
    yr old can make informed consent. The child's boundaries have been violated.
    His/her RIGHT to decide how/when his body is to be touched in any way,
    has been preempted by a selfish pervert. 
    
    Suppose the 11-yr old is gay. Under THOSE circumstances would it have
    been appropriate for a woman to seduce him?
    Under those circumstances would it have been appropriate for a male to
    seduce him?
    why/why not
    
    				herb
    

 Herb-

 You do not have sufficient evidence to conclude whether the woman seduced
him or whether she allowed him to have his way with her. I absolutely
agree that her behavior was inappropriate, and showed poor judgement. I just
think that the amount of harm done here is likely to be less than if the genders
were reversed. Not that "less bad" does not mean "good."

    I don't see why the discussion of the clip should be moved.  This
    notesfile, in general, does not utilized specialized topics much,
    as for example -wn- does.  The next news clip can go in its own
    note.  I don't see why the discussion needs a note of its own.
    
    					- Vick (moderator)

    <she allowed him to have his way>
    I don't believe that is possible, do you? That an 11-yr old would
    initiate sex with an adult?
    
    <think the amount of harm done here is likely to be less>

    why?

    I suggest that part of the reason you feel that way is because you view
    it as a sexual event rather that an exercise in power. A violation of
    boundaries. 
    The sex, as pleasant as it might have been physically, was a modest
    part of the scene. An 11yr old boy who is sexually active with an adult
    has irretrievably lost some of his innocence, some of the joy of
    exploration that young adults can have in learning about sex together.
    And the boy has been taught a very important lesson. The lesson is that
    people in control have the right to use other people's bodies.

    I would like to see a clearer expression of why you feel that an 11
    year old girl who is 'eager' to have sex with an adult male is damaged
    more by the actualization of that fantasy than an 11-yr old boy is.

    (if indeed you feel that way)

    in re my comment 
    <people in control have a right to use another's body>
    in particular as an adult I suspect he will feel rather more like
    Humbert Humbert than is appropriate. He will be less likely to control
    HIS impulses when he gazes upon some innocent nymphet. (Lolita)
    
    				herb

    re .14
    
    Well you can start with the author specifically requesting no replies
    as one reason, or don't you think such a request has merit?  Another
    reason is the frustration of seeing yet another note go down the "is/is
    not" rathole populated by the usual list of suspects.  I think that a
    cursory review of the topics will find one that has child abuse/rape as
    its focus.
    
    Thanks
    
    Mark O'B 

    I put this in a separate "news" topic as the only other news topic I
    could find had a title which I did not feel reflected the more serious
    news clips that might be entered.
    
    The only reason for the title (and the no discussion) was that this was
    the title of the note in =wn= where I entered the same text.
    
    One thing I did notice was that when I last checked, this note created
    a discussion in this conference but not in =wn=. ?????

We "usual suspects" will carry on a slightly unusual version of our usual
discussions.  That is, I fully agree with Herb and think that Mark is not
firing on all cylinders with his reply.  Even if the 11-year-old enjoyed
what was going on, relations between an 11-year-old and a 35-year-old are
totally inappropriate.  They are not good for the child's development,
they will certainly affect his future relations within his peer group;
statutory rape is illegal for good reasons.  An 11 year old is not considered
competent to engage in any legal relations, Mark; what makes you think he's
old enough to handle a sexual relationship with an adult?  Whether he liked
it or not, chances are it screwed him up.

DougO

>An 11 year old is not considered
>competent to engage in any legal relations, Mark; what makes you think he's
>old enough to handle a sexual relationship with an adult?

 How did you reach this conclusion after reading this in .13?

>I absolutely agree that her behavior was inappropriate, and showed poor 
>judgement. 

	Sure, it's against the law and so forth, but
	such things are usually the product of a
	culture's viewpoint, not codified in stone.

	Marriages at age 11 and 12 still occur today in some
	cultures.  In Shakespeare's time, a 14 year-old
	was considered marriageable.

	If our society keeps changing in the direction we're
	going now ( parents bearing children in the mid to
	late 30s ), maybe the age of sexual consent will be
	21, then 25, and so forth.

	The point is, such relations are "wrong" only in
	the context of a given society's rules.  The fact
	that the occasional story like the one in .0 
	pops up just goes to show that it's hardly 
	"unnatural".

	Bad judgement, yes.  Illegal, looks like it.  "Wrong",
	subject to interpretation....

	Steve H

    Re: .17
    
    Moderators are not required to enforce author's requests.  As many
    readers of the file decided to ignore the author's request, and as
    the author's request is not covered (I think) in -mn- policy, I don't
    see any need for moderator action.  If a rathole ensues, it would
    ensue whether or not the discussion was moved, or if it wouldn't, then
    perhaps it indeed shouldn't be moved, for there obviously is some
    desire to discuss the matter.
    					Vick  (moderator)

    Re; .0
    
    Bob, the only reason that the accused beat the rap is that the
    courts could not find an easy way to appl G.S.T. to the situation. 
    Simply, if it isn't eligible for taxation then who cares!
    
    Isn't that the way it is in our beloved country????????
    
    
    From_someone_who_is_extremely_cinical_about_the_future_of_my_freedom_
    and_the_judical_system_in_this_country!
    
    (Please note that the seriousness of the scenerio is understood and
    yes, it is frightening to see the outcome in favour of the woman!
    If one didn't know better, it could be interpreted as discrimination!)
    
    B.D. @KAO
    

>> An 11 year old is not considered
>> competent to engage in any legal relations, Mark; what makes you think he's
>> old enough to handle a sexual relationship with an adult?
>
> How did you reach this conclusion after reading this in .13?
>
>> I absolutely agree that her behavior was inappropriate, and showed poor 
>> judgement. 

actually, i reached it after I read this in .1.

>> Face it, the kid was probably in heaven. :-)

and this in .10:

>> I was an 11 year old boy, once. ;^) Second of all, sexual fantasies and
>> expectations of boys and girls are (in a general sense, no need for 
>> contradictory anecdotes as I could give some myself) often quite different.

I, too, can remember the sexual fantasies of early adolescence.  But I don't
see that fulfillment of these fantasies could likely occur without damaging
the child's development.  Your smileys in these two entries do not indicate
that you recognize this likelihood; ie, it appears to me you think the kid 
*could* handle that situation.  Its not a joking matter; and its all-too-typical
of what I've previously called a patriarchal cultures values, that you could 
joke about it as if child abuse weren't a real problem.  I can't see the joke,
Mark: explain it to me.

DougO

    I thought I was a fairly precocious kid, but 11 sure sounds like child
    abuse to me.
    
    Ray

re: .19, DougO

> what makes you think he's old enough to handle a sexual relationship with
> an adult?  Whether he liked it or not, chances are it screwed him up.

Food for thought - is this a better circumstance than if he'd gotten sexually
involved with an 11 year old girl, in which case there'd be two kids having
gotten screwed up? Or is it strictly the age differential that is "screwing
him up"?

-Jack

    two 11 yr old kids don't get sexually involved unless somebody rather
    older taught at least one of them them how to do it.

    Then lorna your attitudes are just as inconsistent as Mark's
    
    (unless you believe it is possible to laugh about a man seducing an 11
    yr-old girl)

>    The 11 year old could have been in heaven, or he could have been
>    abused. Maybe it will screw him up and maybe it won't.  

             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, if this is only a maybe, why does the penalty include money for
therapy?  Seems more than hypothetical.

The woman should have gotten the same sentence a man would have gotten for
the crime if an 11 year girl was involved.  It would be interesting to see
what the sentecing for such crimes in that satte is, based on gender.
Is this an isolated case or do women perpetrators of this crime generally
get reduced sentences (in that state)?

    Can you consider the possibility of a humorous view of the situation
    when it's an 11-yr old gir, and a man?

    
    re lorna
    
    Remind me not to take that class.  Methinks if I had made some of
    the same wisecracks in the Tyson string, someone would have came
    to my cube with a flamethrower.
    
    there is no such thing as "seduction" of an 11 year old.
    I find your attitude biased and hypocritical.
    
    fred();

    re .35
    
    It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it, and Cousin Phil is
    indesposed at the moment.
    
    fred();

    Now Lorna...... There are a few nasty words that many come to my mind
    when your in this mood. Please don't pick on Fred in this manner. It
    might not settle well with such a fine weekend. As in, you should not
    get so upset that it will make you ill. :)
    
    Have a good weekend!:) 
    

    	Dammit, I agree with Lorna; I think it's humorous, too!
    	Yeah, I know there is a real element of possible harm here, and I 
    also recall that when I was 11 I wasn't having sexual fantasies of any 
    sort, yet.  Yes, I know it's a double standard, and yes, I know I
    wouldn't feel the same if it was a man seducing an 11 year old girl. 
    However, I reserve to MYSELF the right to not be consistent all the
    time, and you can flame at me all you want for having an "incorrect"
    sense of humor, but I DO see the humor in it.
    
    So there!!!
    
    larry 

    Lorna:
    
    I'd like to suggest that your view on sex for pre-teen boys is not
    terribly uncommon. I would also like to suggest that such a view 
    bears SOME of the responsibility for the double standard our culture
    has on sex, and bears SOME of the responsibility for teaching males
    that their sexual activity need not and should not have the same
    emotional and physical reins applied that females should put on
    themselves.
    A quaint but archaic concept that I feel contributes substantially to
    the kinds of things your sisters in arms bitch about in =wn=
    
    				herb

    No doubt there are SOME people who would see the humor in it if it
    were an 11 year old girl being seduced by a 35 year old man (surely
    she enjoyed it) and there are SOME (probably more) people who see
    the humor in it when it's a 11 year old boy being seduced by a 35
    year old woman.  I think all of us are intelligent enough to understand
    the source of the humor, the black twist.  But expressing it, pointing
    it out, telling the joke, in either case is pretty tasteless.  Myself,
    I'm not laughing at this poor kid's expense.  You go ahead if you want
    to.
    					- Vick

    <One thing I did notice was that when I last checked, this note created
    <a discussion in this conference but not in =wn=. ?????
    
    Yup, not surprising once you know the details, but ya hafta be a fairly
    frequently correspondent with both conferences to be aware of them.
    Namely...
    The reason this did not create a discussion in =wn= is because =wn= has
    a specific protocol concerning news items. That protocol is No
    discussion.
    There was already a preexisting topic called News Items in =wn=. Any
    item that is entered there, by protocol/whatever is NOT discussed.
    Mennotes does not have such a topic.
    If you had entered the item either as a new discussion, or possible
    entered into one of the sexual abuse discussions in =wn=, I think there
    would have been a lively discussion.
    
    				herb

    Actually, sexually molesting children is one of those things I just
    fail to see the humor of.
    
    And if it was a MALE doing the molesting, regardless of the gender of
    the child involved, the reactions here and elsewhere would have been
    very different indeed.
    

>                       -< Just a matter of PerspeCtive >-
    
    Assuming that you MEANT that uppercasing, I suggest that you check the
    names of the jokers and the names of the non-jokers against Herb's
    invaluable list...
    
    Ray

    .42

    ..... continued.

    Case in point a man who was know as Uncle Ed will be going to jail for
    having sex with minor males. For some 17 plus years he paid for their
    services, collected their soiled undies, and their stool. He has also
    been found to be HIV positive. There was a hearing, I recall monday.
    I have not heard word lately.

    What is the difference between his actions and the actions of the woman? 
    Both having sex with minors? Regardless of sexual preferences by the 
    adult. 
    
    What was the problem with Pam Smart? She was a child molester too! 

    In all of the above cases, I find nothing humorous either. Hopefully
    none of the above will be around to be among our children again.
    

    re .4
    
    Having sex with an 11-year old boy isn't childhood sexual abuse??????? 
    pray tell, what the HELL IS IT?
    
    Karen-who-hasn't-read-past-.4-yet

    Now that I've read through this entire string I'm TOTALLY flamed.  What
    is humorous about an 11-year-old getting molested?  Because he's a boy? 
    Because it was a woman that did the molesting?  This isn't a joke
    folks.  That boy was taken advantage of to satisfy that woman's sick
    needs.  This string shows me how many people are still objectifying
    sex.  This woman HAD NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER having sex with an
    11-year-old boy.
    
    I totally disagree with the sentence that was handed down.  IMHO, she
    should be serving a long prison sentence equal to what any man would be
    serving if he had sex with an 11-year-old boy OR girl.
    
    As an aside,  I dated a man who had been seduced at the age of 9 by a
    teenage babysitter.  He said he was willing participent and can't see
    any damage resulting because of it.  *HE* doesn't see the damage, but
    others do.  This man cannot have any kind of an emotional relationship. 
    The only kind of relationship he is capable of having is sexual. 
    Everything in his mind is sexualized, *EVERYTHING*.  He is incapable of
    having a committed relationship.  That is the kind of damage that is
    done to ALL children when they are molested, whether the child thinks
    they were willing participants or not.
    
    Karen

    	One problem is that the law cannot distinguish emotional, physical
    and intellectual maturity easily, nor recognise that it may vary widely
    between individuals.
    
    	I had a university degree before I reached physical maturity
    measured in terms of significant bone growth. For others it is the
    other way round.
    
    	Rather than a statutory age limit there should be a "reasonable
    doubt" decision by the court on emotional maturity. This would permit 
    a considered judgement in the case quoted, and could protect people
    like my cousin who is in her mid forties and has a mental age of 5.

    One point about this that I want to emphasize some more. That point is
    about boundaries and their violations.
    An 11 year old boy who has had sex with an adult has been taught
    that it is ok for adults to violate the boundaries of children. This is
    a tremendously significant lesson that a child often/typically caries
    through life. 
    One of the very significantly common outcomes of this experience is a
    similar attitude when the 11 year old reaches his own adulthood and
    comes into contact with an 11yr old who HE considers attractive.
    If it was 'ok' to seduce him, why isn't it ok for him to seduce HIS
    object of desire (not even consciously, just instinctively).
    Although it is NOT the case that all victims of abuse become abusers it
    IS the case that almost all abusers have been abused.
    Again, think of the unconscious mind-set, "my experience was... why not
    do ..." The fact that the woman in this case was found guilty is
    probably an important counter experience for the boy, one that likely
    impresses on him that it isn't OK to do that and the adult WILL be
    prosecuted (although the light punishment may also carry some
    significance)
    Think of another maybe much more common situation "My father and mother
    beat me, and I will beat MY little bastards"
    Children who have not been beaten seldom beat THEIR children.
    The double standard on boys vs girls, probably plays a very
    significant role in creating adult men who are abusers of children of
    both sexes. To the extent that people buy into that double standard they
    also must "accept the bill" that comes due when abused boys become
    abusing adults.
    
    				herb

    <check the names of the jokers and the names of the non-jokers against
    <Herb's invaluable list

    just did, Ray
    of the original short-stick list (rauh,haddock,zarlenga,berry)
    two men (Rauh, Haddock) have replied in _this_ discussion. I believe
    they both CLEARLY expressed opposition to the idea of a joke. 
    The other two men (zarlenga, berry) have made no comment. Later, I
    added kupton and it looked like gortmaker added himself to the list.
    Neither of them has expressed an opinion in this discussion. So, two
    out of 6 have expressed an opinion, both of them OPPOSED.
    Of the original long-stick list ('olsen', rdavis, schuler, binder)
    two have expressed an opinion. Both opposed to the idea of a joke.
    So ALL _expressed_ opinions have been negative.
    
    				herb

    I changed the title of the base note to more clearly describe the
    topic under discussion.
    
    			Steve

.50>    The other two men (zarlenga, berry) have made no comment. Later, I
    
    This topic is not something I would joke about.

    thnx, Mike
    
    woulda been my guess.
    
    				herb

    Re: .50
    
    Having been named explicitly, I feel called upon to reply.
    
    If this topic is seen as fodder for a joke, then I must be devoid of a
    sense of humor.  Abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, or otherwise)
    is not funny, no matter what the sexes of those involved, period.
    
    -dick

    Steve,
    
    Maybe the name should read "27 year old *molests* 11 year old boy". 
    That would describe it for what it really is.
    
    Karen

    Pretty much a trivial difference, doncha think?

    No Mike, I don't think it is a trivial difference.  There is a big
    difference between having sex and molesting a child.  A big difference.
    
    Karen

    Kinda like the way someone might see a significant difference
    between the phrases "Men are X" and "Some men are X," eh?
    
    By the way, I do see your point, and I even agree, but .56 was
    necessary to try to make you understand what it feels like to
    have a valid and significant point, yet have people tell you
    you're nitpicking.
    
    I hope someday you'll see my point regarding the phrases.

    I answered Mike offline.  And for the record, this is not a language
    twist to me.  This society is, at times, incapable of calling sexual
    molestation for what it is as evidenced by this string.  I refuse to
    soften this topic up because some people don't want to call it for what
    it is, sexual abuse of a child.  She didn't have sex with him, she
    abused him.  Making jokes because the perpetrator happens to be a woman
    and the victim a boy has completely infuriated me.  You wouldn't be
    joking if the perp was a man and the victim a girl.  So why joke when
    it's reversed?
    
    Karen

    	It can be a language twist, a legal distinction or a moral
    distinction. As a legal distinction the question has been answered - by
    the laws of the country in which the incidents happened it was
    molestation.
    
    	As a moral distinction I doubt if any of has sufficient
    information. Unlike an adult man with a physically immature girl we are
    probably only talking about psychological and emotional damage rather
    than physical damage. As a moral distinction we would have to know if
    any psychological damage was done, and from the account it appears that
    in this case there might have been.
    
    	However there are well documented cases of both physical and
    intellectual precocity - there is a record of a 5-year old girl
    producing a baby, and there was recently a 12-year old girl studying
    for a mathematics degree at Cambridge. I could imagine cases of
    psychological precocity though I doubt the concept is well defined
    enough to be proven.
    
    	And there are extremes the other way too. When my wife and I met at
    university she was very embarassed at going out with me, and always
    wore her flattest shoes to minimise the difference. Now I am a good
    inch taller than she is. I have mentioned my cousin, who at 45 years
    old is very sweet natured and affectionate, but doesn't understand too
    much of what is going on round her. Having sex with her would be
    molestation regardless of what the law says about a legal age.
    
    	In this particular case the legal and moral decisions that it was
    molestation would probably coincide, but we shouldn't make the mistake
    of taking a legal definition for a moral definition. Politicians make
    legal definitions, but people make moral decisions - not definitions.

    Karen, isn't it amazing how a subtle phrase change, word omission
    or word inclusion can change one's entire perception of a sentence's
    meaning?

    
    >Unlike an adult man with a physically immature girl we are
    >probably only talking about psychological and emotional damage rather
    >than physical damage. As a moral distinction we would have to know if
    >any psychological damage was done, and from the account it appears that
    >in this case there might have been.
    re .60
       Probably, *ONLY* psychological damage?  The physical damage in a
    rape or molestation will heal *long* before the psychological and
    emotional damage.  Have you ever sat down and talked to people who have
    been sexually abused as children?  The psychological and emotional
    damage have life long affects.  When a child is molested, it affects
    everything in their life.  Healing the violation of trust, the shame of
    being responsible, the shame of just *being* can take years.  Please
    don't minimize the damage that has been done to this child by saying he
    has *only* suffered psychological or emotional damage.  It is the most
    difficult part to heal.  One note in here stated that the boy was
    depressed, couldn't concentrate in school and all he could think about
    was sex and that woman.  An 11-year-old should be out playing with his
    friends, discovering the world, doing whatever it is that 11-year-olds
    do not depressed and obsessing about the woman who molested him.  Don't 
    you find that sad?  I do.
    
    Karen    

    <Unlike an adult man with a physically immature girl we are probably
    <only talking about psychological and emotional damage rather than
    <physical damage. 
    
    There are many forms of sexual abuse by a man on a girl that do not
    constitute physical damage, including penetration.
    
    As Karen said, the psychological and emotional damage is much worse
    that the physical damage. Rips and tears heal much easier than psyches.
    

    	Do we have to follow every word with its complete dictionary
    definition. "Only" is quite valid when referring to one alone out of
    several possible. It isn't neccessarily minimising that one thing.
    Since I enjoy playing Devil's advocate I will produce an argument
    minimising psychological damage if you like, but that was not the point
    of my note.
    
    	I was pointing out that physical damage is precisely measurable
    (and prosecutable) at any age. Psychological damage is more difficult
    to quantify, and passing a statutory age limit does not instantly
    transform a psychologically vulnerable child into a mature,
    psychologically invulnerable adult. I would hate to guess at whether
    the average age for this is the same as the law in any particular
    jurisdiction, but I would be very certain that individuals vary widely
    from the average. If the average corresponds to the statutory age (16
    here) then by analogy with physical development (fairly easily
    measurable) and mental development (more arguably measurable with
    intelligence tests and examinations) I would expect psychological
    maturity for individuals to cover the range from about 10 years old to
    about 23 years old, with possible exceptions outside that range.
    
    	Crimes can cause physical damage, financial damage and
    psychological damage. The Romans made no distinction, property damage
    being considered the same as damage to the person, and they probably 
    ignored psychological damage. If it is valid to distinguish
    psychological damage from the other sorts, and .62 and .63 seem to
    think it is, then this case involves only psychological damage.
    
    	And before anyone jumps on my wording again, there are crimes like
    being a Jew in Nazi Germany that involve none of the types of damage I
    listed.

RE:  Note 778.50  VMSSG::NICHOLS 
>    The other two men (zarlenga, berry) have made no comment. Later, I

Well, I just got in here and read this and immediately thought of my own 12
year old son.  Certainly, I didn't find this amusing.



RE:  Note 754.201 VMSSPT::NICHOLS                                      
>    There are a couple of guys who are usually pretty reasonable and don't
>    seem to take sides about too much.
>    mark levesque is one that quickly comes to mind.

Care to repeat that?

    From the Saturday paper.
    
    The sentence was suspended plus 3 years probation.  She is also under a
    restraining order not to be alone with a boy less than 14 years old and
    has to undergo therapy.
    
    The explanation of the light (ie no jail) sentence was that there was
    no need for a deterent effect in this case.
    
    �- Bob -�

    Now that I have completely established my 'credentials'  with this
    matter, I would like to throw out an idea ...
    
    She's in jail
    he's in heaven
    
    Kinda has a cute ring to it, that seems worth a lite-hearted chuckle*
    Maybe that's all Lorna, Mark, and Larry had in mind?
    
    				herb
    *provided it's soon followed by the observation ...
    she should be in jail EVEN if (in the unlikely event that)
    he feels like he's in heaven.

    Lorna,
    I suspect it's a lot of the same men who don't sympathize with
    Desiree Washington who think the 11 year old boy was in heaven.
    It's this attitude that sex is fun and victims are guilty of wanting
    it.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Anyway, I believe both were raped.
    
    					- Vick

    > However, it is possible to see humor, even in horrible things.  
    > People made jokes about the space shuttle blowing up,
    > and about the Titanic sinking, for example.
    
    They did, and I don't think those "jokes" were funny either.
    
    Leslie

    re:.70
    
    Well, if she doesn't sue him for for a few mil in damages, I'll agree
    with you.
    
    Otherwise, I would guess that "conniving" is an appropriate adjective.

Lorna, I doubt that "so many MENNOTERs" don't think Desiree Washington was
raped.  Certainly a few vocal noters do, but don't take that as an implication
for the rest of us.

			Steve

    I've set the last 10 or so notes hidden.  Let's try to keep the
    personal attacks off-line or non-existent.
    						Vick  (moderator)

    re .70
    <yet so many had no sympathy for Desiree>
    
    that sort of seems to be arguing something like "WELL so many of you
    didn't come to Desiree's defense ..."
    
    even if that were true(and I don't believe it is)
    that is hardly justification for making light of what happened to the
    11-yr old boy.
    

    sorry, I feel no need to justify what I find amusing to ANYBODY!
    
    As I said before, I feel it's absolutely wrong, but I STILL find it
    amusing.  Sorry if this isn't 'correct'....
    
    larry

    Larry, what is so amusing about it?  I do not understand.  Would you
    mind explaining?
    
    Karen

    re .-1
    how about .67 as a possible thought?

    Sorry Herb, I don't get it.

  re .60


  > 	However there are well documented cases of both physical and
  > intellectual precocity - there is a record of a 5-year old girl
  > producing a baby, and there was recently a 12-year old girl studying
  > for a mathematics degree at Cambridge. I could imagine cases of
  > psychological precocity though I doubt the concept is well defined
  > enough to be proven.

  Producing? I am confused. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?
  There's a *BIG* difference between a 12-year-old genius choosing to study for
  a mathematics degree and a 5-year old *RAPE* victim being forced to bear the
  child of her rapist!!! Just because studies show that a humyns physiological
  mechanisms can work at very young ages does *NOT* give *ANYONE* the right to
  violate them sexually! I've seen studies that claim boy infants can have an
  erection. Does this mean that copulating with them is okay??? *I THINK NOT*!!

  GEEEZE FOLKS! We're talking about humyn beings here!!! This is *NOT* a joking
  matter!!!

  (sigh)

  It's no wonder sexual abuse appears to be common place in today's society.

  �ī  who-has-an-11-yr-old-son-and-thinks-that-femile-rapist-should-have-
  

    	I was not joking. Why do you think I was?
    
    	The Cambridge student is fairly conclusive evidence of intellectual
    precocity as you agree. The 5 year old *RAPE* victim is an example of
    physical precocity since it is not normally possible until about 7
    years later. It would be an even more impressive example if it could be
    shown that the *RAPIST* was only three years old.
    
    	I am sure I could find examples at the other extreme, too. Wasn't
    Einstein supposed to be a rather unimpressive student? I am sure you
    could find examples of late puberty in medical journals, too. The only
    connection between the two examples of precocity as far as I was
    concerned was that they were easy to find - they are both in the
    Guinness Book of Records.
    
    	Are you claiming that at the statutory age for wherever it is that
    you live all children suddenly become emotionally mature adults overnight?
    I consider that more of a joke than my examples to indicate that it is
    unlikely.
    
    	The reason for a statutory age limit is the same as for a statutory
    speed limit. You are not neccessarily driving safely if you are driving
    at less than the limit; you are not neccessarily dangerous as soon as
    you exceed the limit. The limit is there to simplify the job of the
    police and courts when you *are* driving dangerously. Similarly, a
    person is not neccessarily harmed by having a sexual affair while they
    are below the age limit, and I have heard of cases of even a 21 year
    old having emotional problems as a result of a sexual affair. The
    statutory age limit makes it easier for the police and courts in many
    cases where there does appear to have been emotional damage.
    
    	I believe that the "emotional damage" principle should be
    applicable even when the victim is over the statutory age, just as the
    police can prosecute for dangerous driving even though you are within
    the speed limit.
    
    	Similarly I do not believe the police should prosecute every case
    of sex with a statutory minor, no more than they are required to
    prosecute the driver of every vehicle that exceeds 55 m.p.h. (about
    70 m.p.h here).

    re .89
    
    ok, its not much of anything to get in any case.
    
    			herb

    re: Some notes previous:  no, I won't explain.  If you don't get it, you
    don't get it.  Herb comes pretty close in (I think) .67.
    
    	Yes, I even find some racist and sexist jokes funny, too.  That
    does NOT mean that I agree with them, just that I'm amused.  So call
    the Humor Police.
    
    larry

    i understand, and feel comfortable with your response, Larry.
    
    
    
    				h

    The things we joke about are usually those things that affect us
    most seriously.  I guess its to break up our intensity, to give us
    a new viewpoint, whatever.  When I wrote .2, I was feeling playful.
    I needed to wisecrack about this.  I apologize for offending, and
    I do agree that 11 is usually too young to engage in sex beyond
    the "show and tell" stuff.  I certainly wasn't ready to handle the
    real thing until I was over 20!  Adults who fondle children are
    usually stuck at an early stage of development and need professional
    counseling to get them beyond it. (Don't know how often that
    succeeds,tho.)
    
    	Dick
     

  Dick,

  I think that you're right on. A lot of times painful things are covered up
  with humor. I think it's a mechanism that 'we' (yes, the royal we) humyn
  folk have of dealing with it. If we didn't, then we'd all probably be raving
  lunatics.

  I also firmly believe that laughter at such atrocities can be dangerous. If
  we're not careful, it is possible that our laughter can grow so loud as to
  drown out the seriousness of these situations, and then further incidents
  could be ignored.

  I used possible and could, etc, because I think that nothing is cast in
  concrete. That's what is so tough about life itself. That's what is so tough
  when it comes to the debates of what is rape and what isn't, etc. It's always
  back to that gray area. In fact, that is probably (and this is just a guess)
  why statements that appear to be 'all encompassing' are met with anger from
  many.

  I dunno... just thinking out loud here...

  �ks, �ī 

  who's-calmed-down-a-bit-from-the-last-note-she-wrote-thanks-dick-(';

    Michelle -
    The problem with communicating via "print media" (NOTES, Email...)
    is that the words have to speak for themselves.  They look so
    final - engraved in "stone" (or maybe glass?).  I need to remember
    that you can't see my expression or hear the intonations of my voice,
    so my words really will be ambiguous and subject to more interpretation
    than if directly spoken to you.
    
    	Thanks for understanding,
    
    	Dick 

       I've read about half of these replies and realize that some were
       deleted, but I must tell you that as a single parent with an 11 year
       old boy this SH*T pisses me off!

       The laws that we have in this country around sexual molestation are
       to protect the innocent from the predators.  If that predator goes
       after a mentally impaired citizen we go after them because it
       violates something very basic in our psyche; you don't exploit
       someone just because you can.

       This type of light sentence for this woman is deploreable.  It hurts
       me to think how this little child must be affected.  11 year olds see
       adults as those to model themselves after.  They see adults as
       people to trust and in this country today we generally teach young
       boys to beware of MEN but not WOMEN.  Talk about double standards.

       The message I see here is if a woman molests and 11 year old boy
       she's doing him a favor and he should just lay back and enjoy it.

       She's a pervert and a powerfreak.  She should be sent to prison for
       a very long time.  I wonder what the female prisoners would think of
       her?  Especially the ones with children?  I see no humor in this
       situation.

       patrick

    I applaud your instincts, Patrick.
    
    when you used the word SH*T were you 
    	referring to the seduction of 11 yr old boys or
    	the discussion of it in this conference or
        something else
    
    
    
    				herb

 	I've talked with lawyers and with therapists on the subject
	of women abusing their children, and why they are not
	prosecuted...and why so many incidents are not brought
	forward.

	The explanation I get time and time again, is the fact
	that a mother is the child's authority figure. The mother
	is someone that a child wants to please.......*no matter
	what*. The child is most always feeling that they themselves
	are to blame for whatever abuse they receive. The child will
	almost always strive (even through their adulthood ) to
	please their mothers.

	kits

    i don't understand how that is peculiar to mothers. It would seem also
    to apply to fathers, could you elaborate?
    
    
    				h

  	It seems that most children are with their mothers more
	than their fathers. And, I've been told, it's also an
	instinct for children to draw closer to the mother.

	Children are easily frightened and influenced, especially
	by their mothers. The last thing these abused children
	want is to draw attention to themselves and their
	situation, for fear of more abuse.

	Even in cases of divorce, if the mother is the one
	that has been having an affair, or otherwise was the
	supposedly *wrong* partner, the children usually will
	still defend her. On the other hand, if the father is
	the one having an affair, or the supposedly *wrong*
	partner, the children will side with the mother and
	chastise the father. 

	I have a daughter-in-law who was both physically and
	mentally abused by her mother. Her mother still 
	mentally abuses her. She recognizes the abuse, but
	there is some need deep within that keeps her at
	her mother's mercy at all times. She wants and needs
	for her mother to love her, for her mother to accept 
	her, thinking it's something inside her that caused
	the abuse. It's quite sad, and all I and my son can
	do is to give her our unconditional love. 

	I heard on the radio today that Governor Weld has
	proclaimed an emergency situation for abuse in Massachusetts.
	But the only abuse I've heard in regard to this is men
	beating, or otherwise abusing women, nothing about children.

	
	

    Re: .98
    
    You're forgetting the party line, Patrick.
    
    The severity of a sentence theoretically bears no relation in the USA
    to the evil implicit in a particular crime.  Prisons are not pillories
    for retaliation against evildoers but rather houses of correction
    wherein society can rehabilitate the inmates.  The fervent hope of our
    correction system is that the perpetrators will be led to see the error
    of their ways.
    
    Gawd, what a crock that paragraph is!
    
    -dick

    
    The following note is by a reader of this notesfile who wishes to
    remain anonymous.
    
    					- Vick  (moderator)
    

***********************************************************************
I was mentally, verbally, physically and sexually abused by my mother.  
Any child that is incested or sexually abused is heavily damaged, but 
when it is the mother it breaks all the bonds of motherhood.  

The mother is the nurturer, the chief role model in a child's life.  The 
mother is the first person the child bonds with.  When the mother 
sexually abuses the child, it shatters that important bond.  I believe 
that a mother who incests damages her child more emotionally and deeper 
than a father that incests.

For me, it has damaged every single area of my life.  Yet, for all the 
damage she did to me, I still love her.  She is my mother.  I don't 
understand why she did what she did, I may never understand.  I also may 
never forgive her for damaging me as much as she did.  She destroyed 
everything that was good and innocent and wonderous in my life and 
replaced it with everything that is ugly and dirty.  The emotional pain 
I live with on a daily basis is, at times, overwhelming.  She taught me 
that I was dirty, that I was slime, and that my own true value in this 
world is to be a sexual being.  That the only thing of value that I had 
to give was my genitals, anything else that I have has no value at all. 
I bought this message for many, many years.  It's only been recently 
that I've begun to change it.

This is a painful topic for me.  I know and understand the confusion 
that little boy is going through right now.  I wonder how well he will 
be able to function within relationships when he reaches adulthood.  
Will he be able to achieve emotional intimacy with another woman?  Will 
he be able to have a full life that isn't tainted by this experience?  I 
pray that he gets the help he needs now, so he can go on to have 
everything he deserves and that is right and good and beautiful.  I hope 
that what this woman has done to him hasn't destroyed all of that.  My 
mother took all that away from me.  I hope some day to regain it.

One more thing, I am not my mother's son, I am her daughter.
    

	re  .104

	Thank you for sharing with us.

	My heart goes out to you.

	If you need to talk or just someone to listen, please
	mail me.


	kits

       <<< Note 778.99 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "it ain't easy; being green" >>>

>>    I applaud your instincts, Patrick.
    
>>  when you used the word SH*T were you 
>>  	referring to the seduction of 11 yr old boys or
>>  	the discussion of it in this conference or
>>      something else
    
       Both the light sentence for the woman and some of the insensitive
       remarks made here.  
    
    			patrick

    re: .103
    
   > The severity of a sentence theoretically bears no relation in the USA
   > to the evil implicit in a particular crime.  Prisons are not pillories
   > for retaliation against evildoers but rather houses of correction
   > wherein society can rehabilitate the inmates
    
    What a peculiar view!  The severity of the sentence theoretically
    *does* relate to the evil implicit in the crime. It's just that reality
    shows us otherwise: Steal $100 from the local 7-11 and you get a year in
    some hell hole; steal billions from taxpayers (via S and L speculation or
    the socialism of the defense industry) and you get a slap on the wrist,
    if not a write-up in Time about what a great business mogul you are.
    Or, check out the difference in sentencing between black and white
    criminals convicted of the same offense.
    
    And just who suggests that "correction" has anything to do with it? The
    prison argument runs the (very short) gamut from "well, at least
    they're off the street for a while" to "society deserves a chance for
    retribution". Not much interest in the fact that we lead the world in
    per capita imprisonment, are building prisons at a breakneck pace, and
    will be at the mercy of those we let out of those prisons. 
    
    Kit

Re:  .107

Sorry, I forgot to enter the proper prefatory command:

$ set user/mode=sarcastic

However, my assertion still stands.

$ set user/mode=reflecting_reality_not_la_la_land

If penitentiaries - note the base word "penitent", which means "feeling
or expressing humble or regretful pain or sorrow for sins or offenses" -
were really places intended by their administrators for retribution, we
would hear nothing of furloughs or good-behavior time or work-release or
rehabilitation or prisoners' rights.  What we would hear - from the very
people running the joints - would be "make the bastards pay" and "bust
that rock, a$$hole."

Quite seriously, all the "good" things we see in prisons are intended to
rehabilitate the inmates so they can be returned to society as useful,
well-behaved citizens.  The fact that they are in the interim segregated
from society and taught by their fellows how to be better criminals -
although very real - is nevertheless immaterial to the intent of the
system.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of the woman
who abused an 11-year-old boy.

-dick

    The following in contributed by a member of this community who prefers
    to remain anonymous.  This is a man's point of view.
    
    Karen
    ************************************************************************
    
The responses in question are written by people who have no concept
of the effects of sexual abuse on children.  They see an 11 year
old boy making a great accomplishment.  THat is, getting a 27 year
old woman to have sex with him.  They wish they were man enough to
accomplish this at age 11.  Some wish they were man enough, period.

What they don't see is that the 11 year old boy was probably minding
his own business and was lured into sex by a sick woman.  It was probably
her doing, not his.  They cannot comprehend what it is like for a boy to 
lose control of his own body.  They don't understand how it feels for a 
boy who may have feelings
for this woman to be thrown aside when she is done using him for
whatever she wants.  They have no idea of the woman's mental state
or issues she is avoiding by having sex with kids.  If the kid is missing
    school to be with her, so what.  

Suppose this 11 year old boy was the son of some of the people in that
conference?  How would they feel is their only son came home with aids
from this woman?  How would they feel if he becomes sexually active
before he is ready and later overpowers some other unsuspecting
young girl?  How would they feel if now that their son is active, he
starts having sex with girls and gets one of them pregnant?  What if this
kid cannot find a young girl and begins having sex with other boys because
he doesn't know better?

The really sad part is that these idiots (either male or female) have sons.  
They will raise another generation of idiots.

    From the news tonight here in Washington.
    
    A 14 year old boy was tried and convicted in January on 5 counts of
    child molestation, including rape of a 3 year old girl.  While awaiting
    sentencing he struck again.  36 counts of child molestation are being
    filed against him.
    
    This boy was molested at the age of 10.  
    
    Ok, maybe I'm pushing this, but now do some of you see the seriousness
    of this?
    
    Karen

    
    That should wake up a few folks, Karen.
    

    a very high percentage of sexual abusers had been sexually abused as
    children themselves (don't know actual percentage)

    I think there is a news program airing on one of the networks
    this week, about children sexually abusing other children. I'll
    try to find the listing and get back with it tomorrow (hope
    it's not on tonight).
    
    I'm in complete agreement with Herb and Karen on this.  The
    boy in question was robbed of his innocence by this woman.
    Whether he becomes a perpetrator, or simply incapable of
    meaningful relationships as an adult remains to be seen.
    
    Richard

    	"robbed of his innocence" is an emotive description. The
    description of the psychological damage is in .5.  If we are going to
    make the infliction of psychological damage a crime, then the age of
    the victim should be irrelevant. I have seen men in their forties with
    exactly the same symptoms.
    
    	I regard innocence as a negative attribute. My 12-year old daughter
    knows exactly how you get pregnant, how to avoid it, the risks of
    venereal diseases...  Since she managed to pick the lock on our bedroom
    door a couple of years ago about the only thing she is missing is
    experiencing the physical sensations, and a reasonable percentage of
    12-year old boys are already masturbating.
    
    	Except for the fact that she is better educated on contraception
    and venereal disease she is in about the same position as most of the
    kids in the world since most families live in a single room, and would
    find the concept of a lock strange. Until Americans concern themselves
    with providing separate bedrooms for thirld-world kids I regard most of
    this discussion as hypocrisy.
    
    	I can accept the argument that deliberate infliction of
    psychological damage (as in this case) should be a crime, but the
    victims are not always below a particular age deadline, and the
    techniques are not exclusively sexual. Several religious sects (in my
    opinion) regularly practice psychological damage.

    <	"robbed of his innocence" is an emotive description. 
    
    what in the world is wrong with an 'emotive' description?
    maybe rape isn't an 'emotive' experience?
    
    <If we are going to make the infliction of psychological damage a
    <crime, then the age of the victim should be irrelevant. 
    That's one point of view.
    I rather imagine that the seduction/rape of a -say- 5 yr old girl
    typically (although NOT absolutely inevitably) results in more
    pervasive and deeper psychological damage than -say- the date rape of a
    25yr old woman. Don't you?
    
    				herb
    
    
    

    I couldn't find the listing for the program on sexual abuse
    of children by other children, so perhaps it was on last week. Sorry.
    
    re:. 114
    
    Knowledge of sexual matters at age 11 (or younger) is one thing.
    Having sexual experience prior to puberty (in this case with an
    adult) robs the child of the normal path to sexual maturity.
    I call that a loss of innocence, others call it psychological
    damage, but it amounts to the same thing.
    
    
    Richard

    
    	the boston globe had a large write up about children abusing
    	children, probably a month or so ago. in it they found that
    	the abused child usually took out their frustrations on other
    	children usually younger than they are. the cause for this,
    	psychiatrist and sociologist agree on is that a younger child
    	is more controllable. this sets off a vicious circle of events.
    	they also noted in the article (same one from the globe) that as
    	adults these abused children are highly likely to abuse their own
    	children as well as spouses.
    
    	this makes sense to me....since a large percentage of experience
    	makes up the `how to's' in an adult's life.

    
>>    	I regard innocence as a negative attribute. 

	I regard naivete as a negative attribute, innocence as a
	possitive attribute.  

	I would define innocence as freedom from cynicism and
	jadedness.  Naivete is ignorance and defenselessness.

	-Jim

    re <<< Note 778.117 by SUPER::DENISE "she stiffed me out of $20.!!!" >>>
    
    <... in it they [the Boston Globe] found that the abused child usually
    <took out their frustrations on other children usually younger than they
    <are. 
    
    I do not believe that this "pecking order syndrome" is the usual case
    (if by 'usual' you meant 'majority'
    While it certainly is the case that some abused kids (and most of
    _them_ probably boys) abuse younger ones I do not think that is
    accurate for even a majority of boys (and I don't remember reading that
    in the article) let alone for a majority of abused kids.
    
    Let me hasten to add that my memory is far from infallible. 
    (c.f. 789.65ff oops that's 789.63ff :-)
    
    				herb

    
    	i'm not sure if that is what the article intended (as a majority)
    	its unclear. (that's not to say THEY were unclear) just that was 
    	the impression i got after reading it. 
    
    	denise (mind like a steel trap)

    re: .115
    	You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between rape and
    seduction. Ask several of the women in this conference if they can tell
    the difference. The substitution of a five year old girl for an eleven
    year old boy (the subject of the base note) is a laughable debating
    tactic, and your comment on the effect of date rape on a 25-year old
    woman belongs in another topic where you can minimise its effects as
    much as you like.

    There is no difference between rape and seduction for a minor.
    
    And if you'd prefer to make that a 5 yr old boy that's perfectly fine
    with me.

    <If we are going to make the infliction of psychological damage a crime,
    <then the age of the victim should be irrelevant. 

    I was not trying to make a debating point when I ask you to consider
    the difference between "raping" a minor, and "raping" an adult.
    
    My general point is that it is not correct (or at least very
    simplistic) to assert that age is irrelevant in the assessment of
    psychological damage. That is all that my reply is attempting to say.
    
    Perhaps the point is not so contraversial if I say that 

    the pervasiveness and depth of psychological damage done in "seducing"
    (whatever that means) a 5 year old girl is _likely_ (though not
    immutably) to exceed the damage done even in _violently_ raping an
    adult woman.
    
    I think I have offered a couple of examples that show that age IS at
    least _sometimes_ relevant.

    It's unfortunate that you seem to have found it necessary to get
    huffy/angry. If that perception is accurate, the only thing I can
    conceive of having done to make you huffy/angry is to point out that
    you are wrong. If that embarrasses you into huffiness/anger, well ...
    
    c'est la vie

    				herb    
        				h

    	Sorry if I appeared huffy or angry. If I did then that too was
    probably just a debating tactic ;-)   What I do object to is the
    hypocrisy of talking about "childhood innocence" when they don't even
    do much to protect it in their own ghettos. And I hate losing a
    debating point, even if I happen to be playing devil's advocate at the
    time.
    
    re: .122
>There is no difference between rape and seduction for a minor.
    
    	The age of consent here is 16, so I presume you would say that in a
    case of consenting sex between a pair of 15 year olds both were raped.
    I could also tell you of the village we lived in many years ago where
    the daughter of the headmaster of the local school (who already had a
    reputation as the local whore) seduced a 19-year old lad from the
    nearby town. There was no question about the facts, and he was too
    thick to even think of asking her age. It was two weeks before her
    sixteenth birthday, and he got a year in prison. She would probably
    have lied about her age even if he had asked.
    
    	I admit that the law may make no distinction between rape and
    seduction for a minor, but as rational human beings we will often see a
    distinction, and as jurors we have a duty to do so rather than blindly
    taking an arbitrary age barrier in the wording of the law.
    
    	I am not saying that the case in the base note was correctly or
    incorrectly judged. I have no more information about it than is in this
    notes string, which is certainly less than was available to the judge
    and jurors. What I do object to is the continual invocation of the
    words "sex with a minor" as if there were some magic number that
    transformed you into an adult. In the case of the headmaster's daughter
    above, she was undoubtedly more sexually experienced than he was. It
    was just that all her previous incidents had been with other minors and
    so there was no court case. She was also undoubtedly his intellectual
    superior, if that is relevant.
    
    	Those in this note string who are judging on nothing but the ages
    quoted in the base note are being irresponsible when they criticise the
    verdict.

    Mr/Ms Monahan,
    
    I have to say that it bothers me to be lumped into the
    category "hypocrite" because I decry the loss of innocence
    (or psychological damage, if you prefer) that an 11-year old
    boy is bound to have suffered by having sex with an adult
    (rape or seduction, it amounts to the same thing).
    
    OK, so perhaps we can't save all the world's children, but you
    make some mighty large assumptions about what some of us
    *have* done to help children, in our communities, or
    the world at large.  Whether we have done something or nothing
    still allows us to feel bad that a child has been abused.
    This was a case of abuse, have no doubt about it.
    
    I think you owe an apology at large (but from the tone of
    your notes, I don't anticipate one coming).
    
    Richard

    As I said earlier...
    <My general point is that it is not correct (or at least very
    <simplistic) to assert that age is irrelevant in the assessment of
    <psychological damage. That is all that my reply is attempting to say.
    If you agree with that then our dialogue (diatribe?) has served its
    purpose.

    If you still disagree with that then I do not feel that additional
    discussion will shed any light.

    <And I hate losing a debating point, even if I happen to be playing
    <devil's advocate at the time.
    So it seems. 
    I am not interested in debating with you. I see a fundamental
    difference between exploring an issue and debating. I see the purpose
    of exploring an issue to be to gain insight and understanding. I
    believe that the purpose of debating is to 'win'. 

    <so I presume you would say that in a case of consenting sex between a
    <pair of 15 year olds both were raped.

    <I could also tell you of the village we lived in many years ago where
    <the daughter of the headmaster of the local school (who already had a
    <reputation as the local whore) seduced a 19-year old lad from the
    <nearby town. There was no question about the facts, and he was too
    <...

    When you adduce end points like that it becomes clear to me that you are
    only interested in winning points. 

    If we are going to make infliction of psychological damage a crime,
    then one of the relevant matters that ought figure (and -typically-
    figure very prominently) in the assessment of penalities is the age of
    the victim.
    
    <I admit that the law may make no distinction betrween rape and secuction
    <of a minor but as rational human ... we will often see a distinction
    < and as jurors we have a duty to do so ... 
    Although 'often' appears quite an over statment, I will agree by saying _of
    course_. It comes in the category of extenuating circumstance that may
    impact the sentencing but not the guilt. (But as I recall you are living in
    France and presumably subject to the French law as inherited from Napolean.
    Although my knowledge of history and French law is both musty and
    limited, I have the sense that perhaps the concept of extenuating
    circumstances is much less relevant to French law than to English or
    American law?)

    <Those in this note string who are judging on nothing but the ages
    <quoted in the base note are being irresponsible when they criticise the
    <verdict.
    If I reply any further I will have succumbed to the seduction of
    treating this as some abstract intellectual chat. I will not do that.
    
    The tenor of your remarks throughout .48,.60,.64,.91,...
    suggest to me a mind set of an intellectual game. Such a frame of
    reference clashes with what I see to be the emotional tenor of most of
    the replies in this discussion. In my opinion, rather than enriching
    the mood of this discusion, your remarks have created a dissonance,
    almost a cacaphony.

    I have difficulty understanding why one would _choose_ (c.f devil's
    advocacy) to be contentious about such an emotion laden subject.
    
    					herb

    there was a case reported just yesterday on local (Boston) televison.
    
    An Episcopal priest was found guilty of "approximately 830" episodes of
    rape (sexual congress) with his step daughter from the age of 11 to 14
    (I believe were the ages.)
    He was sentenced to a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 12 years. Which
    means he would be eligible for parole after 6 years.
    
    I think that this sentence is an egregious insult to the little girls
    and little boys of our country who are raped every day.
    
    				herb

    I believe it was in .122.  "there is no difference between the rape
    and suduction of a minor".  Not sure if I quoted perfectly but that
    was the gist of the statement.  Are you saying that someone who has
    been dragged into the ditch, had a knife held to their throat and
    raped has had the same amount of damage (physical and psychological)
    as a minor who has been seduced with no physical violence?  I suppose
    one would have to look at this on a case by case basis, but I find
    it hard to believe that the literal (rather than LEGAL rape) of a
    minor causes the same amount of trauma.  
    
      Jeff

    re .128: I intended to be comunicating that sexual intercourse with a
    minor is rape by legal definition.
    I didn't talk about physical damage I don't believe. The psychological
    damage of sex by an adult with a little girl or little boy is
    devastating. This typically leaves the child with a pervasive sense of
    mistrust of all adults, a limited sense of personal boundaries, a
    limited sense of identity, an awful lot of personal blame and more.
    
    I cannot precisely say how that compares with rape with assault of an
    adult.I can say however, that when an adult is raped, that adult has a
    MUCH clearer sense that it was a violation and an inappropriate
    violation. I think that the psychological result of an adult rape is
    much more focused and much less confused and much less debilitating
    than the same event without violence with a child. (if one can conceive
    of the insertion of a penis into even an 11-yr old as being non-violent)
    
    				herb

    a kind of speculation...
    
    I wonder whether the violence done in many adult rapes in some perverse
    kind of way might be a "blessing in disguise" in that it reinforces the
    conviction that a violation has occured. The adult fought, the adult's
    sense of integrity is maintained, etc. 
    
    When the violation is a violation of status or stature as in a boss
    'forcing' by means of implicit threats of retaliation a subordinate to
    succumb, I wonder whether THAT violation results in MUCH more
    substantial psychological damage than a rape of physical violence to
    the same adult would?
    

re .127:

>    An Episcopal priest was found guilty of "approximately 830" episodes of
>    rape (sexual congress) with his step daughter from the age of 11 to 14
>    (I believe were the ages.)

According to an article in today's Globe, he pleaded guilty to 4 counts
and was sentenced for those counts.

    thnx, made correction to the title of .127

    re: .125
    	I apologise to any individual who was offended by the term
    "hypocrite". I have no knowlege of your individual opinions except as
    expressed in this notes file.
    
    	Spending money on a trial when probably most kids in the world
    would appreciate a cloth screen more as a protection from the cold than
    as a protection of their innocence seems to me to be hypocricy by the
    society of which we are all a part.

    What does protection of innocense mean in this context?  I assume it
    simply means protection from inappropriate sexual experiences, or, 
    does it mean protection from detailed knowledge about sexual matters?
    Because if it means the latter, with AIDS around it could mean a
    childs' life.  
    
    Kids today need appropriate knowledge, their survival may depend on it,
    both psychological (as child abuse victims so clearly illustrate)
    and physical.
    
    Jeff

    re: 134
    
    Thank you.  Although I agree with the idea behind your second
    paragraph, in that there is much money and effort wasted in this
    world that could be better spent on helping the world's
    underprivileged children, I think that bringing adults to trial
    for abusing children is not a waste of time or money, if it
    punishes that offending adult, and perhaps acts as a deterrent
    to such abuse.
    
    re: 135
    
    I think I said earlier that protecting a child's innocence
    means keeping it from having sexual *experience* before
    the child is old enough to choose to experience sex (age of
    consent varies, 14-16 seems to be an accepted range).  I agree
    that *knowledge* of sex is important, to protect the child
    against abuse, disease, pregnancy, etc. That can, and should, be taught
    at a much earlier age.
    
    A couple scenarios to consider:
    
    1. Two 14 year olds decide to experiment with sex. They've been
    taught about AIDS and birth control, and take proper
    precautions.  Though *I* think that 14 might be too young
    to be able to distinguish between love and sex, I can
    accept that sex happens at this age, and parents should
    take the responsibility to educate their children prior to
    that age.
    
    2. A 21 year old and a 14 year old "decide" to have sex.  While
    the 14 year old might be old enough to choose to engage
    in sex, I think the 21 year old is engaging in a form of
    sexual manipulation which borders on abuse, because the
    14 year old is at the mercy of the (assumed) emotional and physical
    maturity of the older person.  There's definitely a possibility
    that the 14 year old might suffer some kind of emotional
    damage which would prevent healthy relationships in the future.
    
    14 is an arbitrary age, but anything younger is definitely too young to be 
    engaging in sex with a partner, but not too young to know about sex and
    the responsibilities that go with having sex.
    
    I'm sure there are some mature 14 year olds who might be able to
    handle a sexual "relationship" with someone older, but I think
    it's rare, and I would wonder what experience would contribute
    to a 14 year old seeking a sexual relationship with an adult.
    I would bet on some kind of pre-teen sexual experience which
    would have affected psycho-sexual development.
    
    All of this is, of course, non-professional opinion.
    
    Richard
    
    
    
    

    re 778.125
    <Mr/Ms Monahan>
    
    The name PASTIS::MONAHAN is listed in ELPH as belonging to somebody in
    Valbonne (Mediterranean France) with a given name of David.
    
    
    				herb

    re .136  Well put Richard.
    
    Jeff

    "Street Stories" on CBS at 9 pm Eastern time this Thursday 5/21 is
    showing the report (postponed from an earlier date) on sexual
    abuse of children by other children.
    
    Richard

    	I mentioned in .124 that I might write up the story in more detail,
    though the essential facts are already there - she was 2 weeks short of
    16 and he was 19 so he got a year in prison. The rest is just for the
    entertainment value (probably mostly mine :-)
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
	It was a small English village, small enough that everyone knew everone
else's business, though there did tend to be two cliques - the locals and the
foreigners. The foreigners were any family that had spent less than two
generations in the village. The policeman and the schoolmaster were foreigners,
but because of their special status were often treated as honorary locals. The
vicar had probably been the same originally, but he had been vicar for more
than fifty years, and had christened most of the grandparents in the village,
so he qualified as two generations. When he christened my son he was so frail
that we were worried that my son would be dropped into the font rather than
christened conventionally.

	The vicarage and church were at one end of the village. Both were much
too large for current use - the vicar lived alone in a house designed for a
family and a couple of servants, and the church had been built a few hundred
years ago when the village had been the centre of a wealthy farming community.
It still was the centre of a wealthy farming community, but with mechanisation
the population was only a fraction of what it used to be.

	From the village church led the street. Nobody had ever bothered to
name it since it was the only street within an hour's walk. Walking time was
the important measure. Most of the villagers didn't have cars, there was a bus
service only 3 days a week, and the mileage on the road signs for the winding
country roads was irrelevant since you would make a series of short cuts across
fields.

	Along the street there were all the essentials - a butcher, a hardware
shop, a grocer, a post office, a garage that specialised in farm machinery but
would make a good try at cars, and three pubs. Half way down the street there
was the bowling green and war memorial.

	The first pub was for the young locals - one bar for the labourers and
the other for the Young Farmer's Association (sons of landowners). The second
pub was for the village elders, and was conveniently situated next to the
bowling green. You didn't go into that one without an invitation. The landlord
seemed unable to see a customer who hadn't been introduced to him personally.
The third pub was for the foreigners, and announced itself as such by having
fairy lights round the bar and a landlord who had heard of cocktails.

	At the far end of the street was the school and schoolhouse - Victorian
buildings set in a playground and surrounded by a brick wall.

	Just beyond that, and therefore out of the village proper was a new
housing estate for about thirty families. It was referred to contemptuously by
the locals as "the rabbit warren" because all the inhabitants were foreigners,
and most were young couples breeding furiously. That is where we lived. It is
also where the village policeman lived, and since there was no more convenient
location for a police station he had the traditional blue light outside his
front door and he had one of his downstairs rooms as an office for doing
official paperwork and interrogating village criminals.


	It was the day of the village summer fair, beautifuly sunny,
    towards the end of August, and rather a grand affair 
for such a small village. The church was filled with entries for flower
arrangement competitions. The field opposite the church had a travelling fair,
and the field beyond that was designated as a car park. There were expected to
be thousands of visitors. Along the street stalls had been set up by locals,
gypsies, and other travelling traders, selling home made sweets, corn dollies,
sandwiches, lavender bags, ...   All the pubs had special licences, and would
be open from 8 a.m. until past midnight. One of them was roasting a whole ox in
the courtyard - that had to be started the day before. A dozen or so extra
police were brought in from nearby towns to control the crowds, watch for
pickpockets, and clear the street when required for races.


	One of the races was the pram race. For a team you need a "mother" a
"baby" and a pram. In practice both mother and baby tended to be members of
local rugby clubs.  The rules are simple. Mothers and babies have to be
appropriately attired, and gather with their prams near the church. The babies
are loaded into the prams, and at the starting signal the mothers race off with
the prams down the street. At each pub the mothers and babies all have to drink
a pint of beer provided free by the landlord. After the third pub the pram
driving tends to become a little erratic, and there are sometimes collisions in
which babies are tipped out and have to be helped back in. The first
mother/baby/pram team past the line opposite the school won a small prize, but
most of the competitors were taking part for the fun of dressing up, and the
three free pints of beer.

	With this as background, at about midday the schoolmaster reported his
daughter as missing. She hadn't been seen since early in the morning, she
hadn't turned up for lunch, and with thousands of strangers in the village
there was cause for concern. Besides, with only the street and fairground to
search it seemed certain she was not in the village. The police circulated her
description and started looking. At fifteen years old she was still a minor,
though it was only two weeks before her sixteenth birthday, and obviously her
age was part of the description.


	It seems that early in the morning she had met a lad from a nearby town
who had come for the fair. What they had done for most of the day is unknown,
though at some point she must have sneaked back into the schoolhouse to fetch a
blanket, because late in the afternoon a policeman found them having sex on the
blanket in a hayfield just outside the village.

	If it had been the village policeman who had found them, he knew her
personally, and probably had heard more of her reputation for sexual prowess
than the rest of us since his own daughter was in the same class at school, he
would probably have just told her to put her knickers back on and go to find
her parents immediately.

	Unfortunately, it was one of the policemen brought in for the event. He
recognised her from the "missing" description, and confirmed it by asking for
names and addresses from both of them. Then he escorted both of them back to
the "police station". The local policeman wasn't home, and before anyone from
the village had been involved the lad had been charged with having sex with a
minor.

	The court case took place a month later. The girl (now no longer a
minor) turned up in her school uniform, not because of viciousness but because
the case was expected to be short and she would spend the rest of the day in
school. In fact, we heard later that she had had a heated argument with her
father. She had wanted to testify that she had been the one to suggest having
sex, and he had argued against that to protect her reputation. He must have
been the only person in the village not to know her reputation needed no
protection.

	The court case *was* short, about twenty minutes. The facts were so
clear, with a police officer as witness to them having sex that she was not even
given a chance to testify. He was given a one year sentence, but in the
circumstances would probably have been out of prison before he was twenty.

	All the village thought it was unjust (except maybe the schoolmaster)
but nobody knew the lad personally, so after a few days the village gossip
reverted to other scandals like the vicar's son.