[eDebate] calling me a freak doesn't mean you're not a bigot

[Kevin Sanchez]

dear scott and interested others:     clearly, there's a period of time 
called infancy when a person really doesn't think about sexual attraction or 
romantic love: however, we were discussing children, not babies {another 
factor that does not make your 'baby rape' article very relevant is that the 
attackers did not appear motivated by anything sexual, not even sexual lust 
or power; as the article states: "The attacks are fuelled by the myth that 
sex with a virgin will protect a man against AIDS or even cure him of the 
incurable disease."} ... in any case, one rape of 9-month-old baby should 
not determine the sexual decisions of all those under 18, anymore than one 
rape of a womyn should determine the sexual decisions of all men - now as 
for when exactly one grows out of infancy into childhood, i don't know, 
there's no universal age criteria we can impose on all humyns at all times 
{footnote: i'm reminded of the 'royal' practice of fondling and sucking an 
infant king's penis ... any (in)decent history textbook will make mention of 
the royal fluffer, along perhaps not in so many words :}, that's why i feel 
its crucial that we have people around us who love us whom we can trust to 
help us, and who relate to us as persons and not as age-groups or 
developmental-stages: yet creating that surrounding of love calls for 
intimate care, not presumed inferiority, as you appear so keen on espousing 
- and if that loving community does not exist, no amount of morally 
outrageous adultist bigotry will be virulent enough to protect children: for 
example, perhaps your children would feel very uncomfortable talking with 
you about their romantic lives, i know i would if i were your son, why? 
because according to you, they/we can't even *feel* romantic love, they/we 
are eunuchs, you simply forbid a sexuality 'under your roof' (as adultist 
say when they invoke that 'we pay the bills' guilt-trip to justify coercive 
restrictions): now you may think this would cause your children to 'behave' 
but trust me, it rarely works out that way, often they'll disobey just 
because you tried to make them obey, and just maybe they'll find their 
life-long love at 13 in a 30-year-old you can't stand ... love is always 
unpredictable, always breaking out of any pre-assigned categories, always 
trespassing where its not allowed - so in reponse to your 'baby rape' 
scare-tactic (which of course is a horrible, horrible act of rape, but 
nonetheless utterly unrelated to a discussion of consensual love, and also 
irrelevant for aforementioned reasons), let me be as BLATANT as i can be: 
**restricting a child's freedom to be sexual is another form of rape** it 
holds children down and forces them to do what adults tell them to do, it 
constitutes sexual control to gratify adult's doll-toy conception of 
children; naturally this intersects with a genital-centered view of 
sexuality implicit in your moral condemnation, many theorists and 
researchers think that we're born with a wholistic sexuality, one that 
pulsates throughout our entire body, indeed a sexuality in which even 
everyday existence is amazingly erotic, and that slowly, through exposure to 
stupid socio-sexual traditions, we learn to spaitially locate our sexuality 
in our genitals, to view sex only as penetration, and thereby to truncate 
and forget our former wholesomeness: now i don't know that i believe these 
simplistic folks, but i mention this only to problematize adult impositions 
of their way of looking at sexuality as the only real way, indeed many 
molesters and rapists share in your conception of sexuality, so please 
recognize that your paternalistic child protectionist stance accomplishes 
nothing but to *turn on* molesters and rapists who *get off* to seeing 
children as *innocent sexual pawns they can dominate* - i admit to also 
over-simplifying this issue, but even though relations between womyn and men 
are complex (and usually privledge male power, just as you properly 
recognize that relations between adults and children privledges adult power) 
and even though rape, molestation, harrasment, and sexual dominance are 
considerable concerns in every sexual relationship, that does not mean that 
an individual man or womyn should be forbidden from pursuing another 
sexually simply because our society is fucked up, does it? - i suppose i 
could play your scare game, i could compare you to those who wished to 
forbid interracial marraiges because they were on-face digusting (just like 
i'm on-face digusting, and those faggots too, right scott (or scott's past 
lives)?), but i won't goes down that road, not because you're not comparable 
with that white supramacists prejudice that many folks still deal with 
daily, but because you're a bigot in your own right - so finally, what's 
needed in my opinion to counter-act sexual coercion is more respect, not 
more bigoted presuppositions of children's 
'innnocence'/ignorance/inferiority: what's really needed is more empathy, 
not more neo-victorian intolerance - so please be more substantive in your 
next post, or rather please stick to your 'i have nothing more to say to 
you' comment: cuz calling me a freak doesn't mean you're not a bigot     
:luv,kev


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp