Sex Police
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I've noticed that there is a large number of females who are lamenting the awful harm that was done to them by their past history of sexual "molestation".  I can't turn on the TV during the day without seeing some tear-streaked, quivery-voiced "victim" trying to "prevent it from happening to someone else."  The goal, apparently, is to convince everybody that sexual experience is the worst possible thing that could happen to an adolescent female.
The fact is that there isn't anything inherently harmful or evil in ordinary sexual behavior, even sexual behavior involving adolescents.¹  However, did any of these "victims" bother to wonder what actually caused the alleged harm?  Was it the natural, normal sex act, or was it the furtive way in which it was done, the guilt that was explicitly associated with it by the "predator", the ominous warnings (AKA sex education) in school, the hiding it and the fear of getting caught, the horrified reactions of the adults when they became aware of it, the resulting involvement of intimidating government agencies and institutions, the predatory coverage by the news media?
The harm results not from sexual behavior by adolescents, but from the obnoxious connotations attached to it and by the malicious response to it, when it is discovered.  The harm is largely the result of beliefs imposed upon us all by people with a Christianoid² mentality.  They have defined for us, whether we like it or not, that sexual behavior is evil.  They have sought every possible permutation of that behavior to condemn.  Oh, how righteous they feel, doing it!  The only sexual variation that they will allow is between a man and his own wife, with her on her back and him on top, face-to-face, for the specific purpose of procreation only, and they had better not enjoy it!³  Once technological methods of procreation are perfected, and actual physical contact between the parents is no longer necessary, even that exception will be condemned.
Was I unduly influenced by the "sexual revolution" of the 60s?  Well, there were some things about those events that turned out to be mistakes.  It happens, for example, that sex isn't free, after all.⁴  Neither is love.  They actually turned out to not even be the same thing.  Darn!  However, our errors in the 60s were not anywhere near as harmful as the malicious, pernicious, never-ending, "Hell Fire and Damnation" Christianoid denunciation for its own sake of any and all possible sexual pleasure.  If a young lady is old enough to be interested, capable, and attractive to men, then she's old enough.  Courts, old maids, busybodies and Christianoids ought to mind their own business.  They're doing a lot more harm than the sex is.
Finally, back to those recovered, converted, female Christianoid Seen-The-Light zealots, the ones who are on Oprah trying to "prevent it from happening to anybody else".⁵  Those women are directing their vengeance at the wrong targets.  The harm which they claim to have suffered wasn't caused by their male "molesters".  It was caused by the Christianoids and by their various lackeys and imitators.  Do we want to prevent sexual "molestation" of female adolescents?  Short of redesigning us by the use of genetic engineering, men's behavior isn't going to change.  The best alternative, therefore, is to revise the definitions.  Don't think of sex as evil.  Think of it as good.  If it wasn't for Christianoid nonsense and the stinking Sex Police mentality that has pervaded the land, much of what we view today as molestation would, instead, be viewed as education or as recreation.

Dear Frontiersman:
In the April issue, "Steve" of San Antonio observes in a letter that you claim the right to refuse sanction or assent to any law.
In the same issue, you respond to Steve by saying that he has misunderstood your position, and you provide a lengthy explanation of your views regarding anarchy, monarchy, and the social contract.
In my opinion, your explanation of your views virtually validates Steve's assessment.
Assuming that you could contract with a government in advance regarding your rights and duties, wouldn't you retain the right to judge that government's compliance with the contract?  If that government decreed a law which you thought was out of compliance, wouldn't you refuse to sanction that law?  If that is so, how is that different from insisting on your right of personal assent to the application of every single law?
Doesn't it all depend on your judgment?

Frontiersman 479 E.  700 N. Firth, Idaho 83236         Police Special It Fires Both Directions at Once. (Should be Required Equipment for all Cops.)

Acknowledgments
•     My thanks to Sir John the Generous http://www.jwebster.com/, Sir Donald the Elusive, John, of Santa Cruz, California, and Lady Helen the Gracious for their contributions. 
•     My thanks to The Affiliate, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, and The Thought, of Glendale, Arizona, http://home.att.net/~guildmaster/wsb for printing reviews of the Frontiersman.

Actual Writings on Hospital Charts
Source Unknown — forwarded by Sir Donald the Elusive
•     She has no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband states that she was very hot in bed last night.
•     Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year.
•     On the second day the knee was better, and on the third day it disappeared.
•     The patient is tearful and crying constantly.  She also appears to be depressed.
•     The patient has been depressed since she began seeing me in 1993.
•     Discharge status:  Alive but without my permission.
•     Healthy appearing decrepit 69 year old male, mentally alert but forgetful.
•     The patient refused autopsy.