From: Sasha Chislenko (sasha1@netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jun 29 1999 - 16:06:33 MDT
After a few messages related to sexual abuse,
I'd like to generalize the issue.
There is nothing special in the sex stuff, is there?
Or about physical stuff.
So here's the issue, in a general form:
Case 1:
Entity A makes a non-consensual impact on the entity B.
For example, fills B's memory with something B doesn't
want to have, or subtracts from its body or possession,
without any rational justification for it, such as preventing
harm to third parties.
This is clearly rape, evil, and should be illegal - right?
Case 2.
Entity A makes an impact on entity B that B is not in
full capacity to assess consciously. Even if B likes the
effects, it's statutory rape, if A can't reasonably prove
that the action was guided by the rational expectation of
B's benefit. Examples include circumcision (if it's illegal
to touch child's genitals, it should definitely be illegal
to cut them, right?), religious indoctrination (people should
be able to understand, and consent to, sex, much earlier than
they can estimate the impact of non-rational universal
ontologies on the future evolution of their worldviews).
The impact of priests on young children would be much less
harmful if they limited it to the occasional abuse of their
bodies, rather than persistent mutilation of their minds...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:20 MST