\input tex
\twelvepointroman
\dropcaps

\line{\hfill\today}

Dear Eliza,

Thanks for sending me a copy of {\bf NO LONGER SILENT}. I have though
some pretty severe criticism on two items in issue \#4/5, so hold onto
your hat.

\dropcap{I} don't care if Mykel Board is an asshole. While I think you
were a fool to fall for the April Fools joke, that's not my point at
all.  What bothers me is that you jump onto the ``kiddie-porn''
bandwagon with the enthusiasm of the anti-sex fascists, and lump all
discussions to the contrary as apologists for the evil NAMBLA. You are
covering your interpersonal authoritarian attitudes with emotionalism.

It always seems to come down to power and consent, which is exactly
where your flaws lie.

You state that young people are not capable of giving consent, that
they are not full humans, their words not to believed. And of course
if you got to define the world as described in your editorial, you
would have the power to enforce this.

Far creepier are your assumptions on power. You assume: if there is a
power disparity, the one with greater power will force things upon the
other, intentionally or otherwise. You also imply the reverse: two
people having similar power/characteristics (age, etc) somehow
prevents abuse?! Gimme a break! And spare me the ``but if it saves
only one life\dots'' crap fascists use to take away other rights.  You
used the phrase ``\dots potentially abusive behavior.'' {\it All}
relationships are ``potentially'' anything.

And skip the ``sex with 10 year olds'' red herring usually dragged out
at this point; ``what if\dots'' will get you anywhere. The only place
I've seen the words ``\dots insist on their right to screw 10 year
olds'' is in anti-sex writing such as yours. Not all relationships
reduce to fucking, and to presume so is stupid.

Asserting that someone (young) will ``regret'' their actions later in
life is plain old sex phobia, projecting your own fear and guilt onto
others. Guilt and ``regret'' are personal moral judgments; they are
not caused by any particular act, but by being {\it taught} to feel
guilty! Coercion through social conditioning.

But the worse thing you've done, is to confuse the {\it discussion and
rejection of proscribed social rules} with ``advocating sex between
children and adults'', just like the religious fascists. You want to
either ``ban'' some relationships according to some predefined rule,
or after-the-fact check which relationships are OK? How would you do
this?  Would you require couples to produce proof of age upon demand?
Who determines what is acceptable power disparity? What if some smart
15 year old and his/her 21 year old friend think otherwise? How far are
you willing to override other peoples self-determination to enforce
your beliefs?

Of course people, very especially young ones, are fucked with
sexually, emotionally, socially and physically. So was I.  But this
does not mean everyone is, or will be, and to up-front prevent people
from getting {\it what they want} is -- authoritarianism. The world is
not consistent or symmetrical.

Personal freedom means that {\it people will do things that you don't
approve of}. What else is the point?! Abortion comes to mind. You
missed what so many other authoritarians miss. You forgot about trust,
dear, which is what all decent relationships run on. This is not a
small point.

If you've take all of the above to mean I am making excuses for my own
desire to fuck 10 year olds, it's just more evidence of a personal
agenda on your part. I have no interest in people too young to
converse with or have public hair or decent orgasms. I do however tend
to have young boyfriends. I am quite aware of power, and so are they;
we discuss it openly. Is my 19-year old boyfriend at my mercy? Is he
somehow my prey, for me to do with as I wish? Gimme a break. Maybe 19
is over your arbitrary threshold of ``adult''. What if he was 18? 17?
16? Is there some absolute and externally-derivable number before
which he is unable to give consent? Am ``I an exception'', but
``others'' to be worried about? To whom would you give the power to
decide?

Your editorial was propped up with insults and gratuitous language --
the ``\dots their right to eat shit'' nonsense; casting those who even
discuss generational sexuality as suspect; the whole Mykel Board
thing, especially after you knew it was a hoax. It makes me wonder,
how I can trust your other writing?


\bigskip

\dropcap{T}he very first article following your editorial starts off
with the italicized sentence: ``{\it Today in America, our right to
control our bodies is under attack.}''. Yes, even in self-described
``anarchist'' circles!

The article purports to be about herbal abortions. {\it Roe vs.~Wade}
was not about abortions, it was about a person's right to privacy with
(specifically) a doctor. It was what allowed a woman to find a doctor,
or hopefully a more trustworthy health provider, and have a safe
abortion. ``Back alley abortions'' are exactly what you are proposing
-- homemade and dangerous. It has nothing to do with entrusting
``safety'' to state-certified doctors, it has to do with open, freely
available (if not free\dots) health care. I suggest you actually talk
to people providing health care, such as practicing midwives, even
herbalists, before you go giving advice on ingesting toxic substances.
``Herbal'' isn't a magic word for ``safe''; herbs work because they
are powerful, and all powerful things are {\it potentially dangerous}.
Remember that?

\bigskip

\dropcap{I}'m sorry to be so critical, but your zine, as well as
others, contain many righteous rants, incorrect facts propagated to
further personal ends, and worse, these are overlooked by reviewers
because the vehicle is somehow beyond criticism.

I realize our little anarchist/sexual outlaw/punk/whatever world is
small, and we must co\"exist in the same small place, but it's no
reason to not call each other on shit where needed. I hope this is
taken in the way it's meant.


\bigskip
\obeylines\parskip=0pt
Tom Jennings
Box 77731
San Francisco CA 94107

\bye