From: Louise <email@example.com>
To: donna laframboise<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Fw: response to shackleton
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:13:10 -0400
[Somemore twisted but revealing accusations by Ms. Malenfant]
----- Original Message -----
From: Louise <mailto:email@example.com>
To: David Shackleton<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: leonard zakow <mailto:email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:59 PM
Your recent letter to DonnaLaframboise was forwarded to me,
[Theforwarded letter here mentioned would represent a seventh known-of-but-missingemail from the reporter to Ms. Malenfant. (With the article already published,it was unrelated to reporting--hinting again that these two women had a closerelationship.) Of the seven seemingly missing emails, just two have datesbefore (shortly before) the reporterwas warned to preserve all such documents; regarding this legal matter see thethird hyperlink hence.]
need to respond. This entire story concerning the sexual controversies
view, that does not speak well of the family rightsmovement.
I thought that this movement was about establishingequality and fairness in
family law, and ending the cannabalization of thepaternal family in this
country. This goalis large and difficult, but I now understand why it has
been so difficult, if the leaders in this movement seenothing wrong with
the idea of associating controversial views about sex inchildhood with this
goal. The entirebook written by Christensen is troubling, and very few in
our society would support his intentions there.
the desires that underlie them are good and natural, butpurports to
eliminate any arguments against the free flow of porn inour society. Yet
hisbook nimbly tip toes around the problem of adult sex with children, so
of course, the book fails in its objective, as this isthe problem most of
us have with libertarian views on sex.
hurting kids by denying them sex, that they should havesex and masturbate
freely without adult interference, that even providingthem with porn has
merit in order to counter society's disapproval of sexand nudity, and that
even coercing children into sex is no worse than denyingthem sex - all of
these views are anethema to most people in our society.
The thought that this story has exposed the fact thatseveral "leaders" in
the family rights movement are not only tolerant of theseviews, but
actively encourage them, is a sad commentary on thecompetence of this
movement. It is nowonder this movement has gotten no where, since the
criticism that we are tolerant of early introduction ofsex to children is
actually a true criticism.
smallminority of the population, is the likely reason why the average
middleclassvictim of the family courts are staying away from the movement
indroves. We certainly dillute the mainmessage of fairness in family law
whenwe anchor this effort with these controversial minority opinions about
sexin childhood. [Noteher (correct) insistence elsewhere that neither the public nor the movementknew about my book's ideas until she acted to expose it; now they are "thelikely reason" the movement has been failing!]
Anyone who believes that advocating the earlyintroduction of sex to
children is a good thing for the movement, has no ideawas a public
relations disaster this association is for the movementin the long run.
Childhood is over when sex starts, and children whoengage other children in
sex have likely been awakened by an adult who taught themhow its done.
Those in the movement who actively support earlychildhood sex will never
get the time of day from the government, childwelfare,and other system
people, and no one will convince me that thenormalization of childhood sex
is the way to go for the movement.
represented was horrified at the very idea that anyonewould believe they
would want sexual congress with their own child.
accused would want to be associated with the idea thatsex in childhood is a
good thing. Whileecmas
caused by associating with these views,
rightsleaders have come out in support of associating these controversial
ideaswith the movement. This is, in myopinion, a dereliction of duty, and
[Avery strange way to describe their objecting to her publicly tarring the movement by raising this controversy.]
it is a big mistake, as media will not give those leadersthe time of day
again. We haveenough issues to contend with without adding these
controversies to the cart, and I now understand why thismovement gets no
where in influencing the people with the power to changethings.
Parents helping Parents