What a load of crap.
Submitted by mvanhouten on December 30 2000 14:47:23
In reply to Question for Sprite and MV submitted by asb on December 17 2000 22:41:51
|
Define what a child is, and maybe a reasoned discussion could occur. But I have a feeling your definition of "child" is "not ready for sex." It would be a little difficult to find any new insights under those conditions. I have never argued that all humans should be exposed to all the risks and freedoms of society from birth. I have argued that "maturity," and the right to and desire for sexuality, do not depend on chronological age. I don't know whether or not a 5 year old exists that can wisely decide for themselves to have a sex change operation, or to start a sexual affair with a stranger. I DO believe that restricting the rights of people must be done by criteria OTHER than that number on their birth certificate, because that is simply prejudice and bigotry. Today's ideas of what it means to be a child are a collection of often contradictory definitions and criteria constructed over the centuries and meant to politically oppress and subjugate a class of people weaker than the majority. Define "the child" for us. Give it a shot. Are children dependent on parents? I know too many folks in their thirties who are still dependent on their parents. Are children "immature"? What the hell is immaturity? Categories are just the means of calling dissimilar things (or people) similar. Kids are all the same and so need the same restrictions on their freedom, just like women and blacks and gays are all the same and need the same restrictions. Calling everyone under 18 (or 16 or 6) "a child" is just as much an action of bigotry, prejudice and oppression as any label like "negro" or "the fair sex"; "homosexual," or "pedophile." Justice demands another way. And so do I. Oh, and how do you tell if a boy wants to have get it on with you? Look for the bulge in their pants, you idiot. |
Follow ups: