Holy freakin' hand grenade, if I wasn't at home recovering from surgery I wouldn't be able to read all this shit, but really, all you Anonymice, pick a damn fake name already! It's impossible to figure out which one of you is continuing a point.

Jeebus Christmas!

Brightstar, you need some serious sandpaper for your rough and downright offensive edges, but you make a valid point. There are men who are so starved for love that they stray into deviancy. They're sad cases. Legal prostitution would help some of them. I think prostitution should be legal, since making it illegal IMHO hurts more people than it helps. Howevever, as you acknowledge, we cannot condone pedophilia. Those men are sick.

AKASmith, we need to come down like a ton of bricks on creeps who prey on infants. This McClellan guy would probably molest a 6 year-old if given the chance. Society must never allow that to happen. The weirdness happens in the tween stages. Case in point, which Salon actually reported on. The teenage girl in the Lemony Snicket movie was hot. Lots of grown men, m'self included, thought she was hot. Grown men will dig teenage girls, but like the store signs say, you can look but don't touch. Beyond that, a grown man shouldn't want to act on his attraction to teens, since they're kids, for crying out loud. But, let's not pretend that the attraction isn't there. Between pedophilia and healthy adult relationships lies a grey zone which we all should acknowledge exists.

Various anonymice have pointed out that 19 year-olds are being convicted of rape based on consensual sex with, say, 17 year-olds. That's insane. Rigid sex laws do not work. Judges need to be given discretion. Ditto for parents who photograph their nude children, or teenagers who post immature and reckless photos of themselves having sex -- in other words, teens being teens. All this Republican puritanism is accomplishing is destroying lives.

On the other hand, as they say, you know it when you see it. A 45 year-old man lusting after 6 year-olds is a menace to society. Keep him under watch, tell him to keep his sick fantasies to himself, and if he tries to spread his sick gospel, squash him, one way or the other.

Too many people believe that if an animal belongs to someone, that person has a right to beat or abuse that animal. There are actually letters to the editor supporting Vick's right to torture and kill his dogs. You are right to compare it to spousal abuse or child abuse, but unfortunately "the bad old days" are all too often right now.

Your comparison is apt because in all three categories of abuse I cited above, the underlying belief of some people is, "it's none of our business." That misguided approach has been around forever, as has the countervailing approach of being a good samaritan.

The belief that women and children are property to be used and abused as their owners see fit still exists in the backwards corners of our world, but thankfully it is dying out. I hope the same holds true one day for animals, too.

You really are into me, you know that? I write a letter, and you show up with the nicest comments. It would be touching if it wasn't so creepy sad.

Anyway, the name is DurianJoe, just like the other writer's name is Canuckistan Bob. You might feel better about yourself if you stopped operating on a third grade level.

Lastly, I guess you overlooked my reference to "spousal abuse," not "wife abuse." I'm obviously against women beating up their husbands, genius. So tell us: why did your wife beat you up (not that it's surprising)?

Neither are rapists, murderers, arsonists, or other criminals. Pedophilia is both a mental disorder and a crime, and it's the criminal aspect of it that justifies society's intervention, specifically, law enforcement against men who sexually prey on young people.

Jews were persecuted not for a crime against, but for existing. Do you understand the difference?

I've written earlier here that this McClellan case is a hard case, and one that I hope is resolved by the best legal minds in our country (meaning Alberto Gonzales, take a hike). He is an admitted pedophile, and he not only advocates that crime, but he goes out of his way to instruct others on how to do it. On the other hand, to society's knowledge, he has never acted on his pedophilic desires.

Free speech has its limits, but the great legal question here is whether McClellan's activities fall within or outside of those limits.

I did not mean to suggest that woman cannot be pedophlies and criminally prosecuted on that basis, only that as with many other sex crimes, the perp is usually a male.

AKASmith, if the State can prove that McClellan conspired with another individual(s) to perpetrate an actual case of pedophilia, then even if he never left his parents' basement, he too could be convicted of that felony.

Short of that, we have a very interesting legal question here. No one denies that what McClellan advocates is abhorrent, but the question is whether mere advocacy, in this situation, is a crime. It may indeed be, but as they say, that's for the courts to decide.

And now you know that your name is the same as one of my all-time favorite album covers (album covers being a great lost art from the age when dinosaurs roamed the Earth).

Still calling me "DubiousJoe," eh? I must have really wounded you badly in a letter exchange somewhere here on Salon. How else to explain your very weird obssession with me?