on 1/31/01 6:17 PM, Bryan C at kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> At last, back where we are supposed to be. I don't really know about
> this one but I had a question to add. A debate team indicted F by
> saying he was a pedaphile. I think they were just misinterpreting F's
> study of pediatry in Greek and Roman culture, but I was wondering if it
> was true. Its a stupid argument but I am curious about it.
What is a pedophile? Is it someone who ignores laws for ages of consent? Is
it someone who has sex with children (who are children?)?
Legally it's probably true. He was arrested for having sex with a man (an
officer) who was below the age of consent. So what?
I think that Foucault's theories put the very notion of Pedophilia in
question.
Couple pre-empts:
This is not to say that the practice in a given historical (normative)
condition cannot be destructive - it can be and perhaps is based on the
current Victorian sexual framework.
I do not think this means that it is inevitably destructive. An examine of
Greek society (as in HoS II/III) demonstrates the potentially positive
aspects of sex/sexual relationships.
The general attack against pedophilia is that it is "absent real consent" -
but that is dependent upon a notion of consent where consent is defined by
the same laws that interpret pedophilia rather than the other way around
(the law proves its inevitability).
The basic argument that's made is that saying pedophilia is wrong presumes
that children are pre-sexual, but if that is true then (going by Foucault),
the reason they are pre-sexual is that they're socially constructed as such.
Which means that that sort of interaction in today's society might be
destructive.
So if we want to talk about what is "acceptable" (do we? I don't know) where
do we begin (or end)? It seems like any distinction is arbitrary, or at
least distinct from societal norms regarding why pedophilia is unacceptable.
It seems to me, then, that pedophilia is not a question of moral standards
(consent laws and such) but instead of question of Victorian sexual norms
and ageism (as if they were not one).
I guess getting back to the real question, it doesn't seem to me so much
relevant, but instead to provide a starting point for a discussion of what
the particular limits of thought are in a given condition. Perhaps, though,
I have simply taken this as an opportunity to rant. Either way - :)
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> At last, back where we are supposed to be. I don't really know about
> this one but I had a question to add. A debate team indicted F by
> saying he was a pedaphile. I think they were just misinterpreting F's
> study of pediatry in Greek and Roman culture, but I was wondering if it
> was true. Its a stupid argument but I am curious about it.
What is a pedophile? Is it someone who ignores laws for ages of consent? Is
it someone who has sex with children (who are children?)?
Legally it's probably true. He was arrested for having sex with a man (an
officer) who was below the age of consent. So what?
I think that Foucault's theories put the very notion of Pedophilia in
question.
Couple pre-empts:
This is not to say that the practice in a given historical (normative)
condition cannot be destructive - it can be and perhaps is based on the
current Victorian sexual framework.
I do not think this means that it is inevitably destructive. An examine of
Greek society (as in HoS II/III) demonstrates the potentially positive
aspects of sex/sexual relationships.
The general attack against pedophilia is that it is "absent real consent" -
but that is dependent upon a notion of consent where consent is defined by
the same laws that interpret pedophilia rather than the other way around
(the law proves its inevitability).
The basic argument that's made is that saying pedophilia is wrong presumes
that children are pre-sexual, but if that is true then (going by Foucault),
the reason they are pre-sexual is that they're socially constructed as such.
Which means that that sort of interaction in today's society might be
destructive.
So if we want to talk about what is "acceptable" (do we? I don't know) where
do we begin (or end)? It seems like any distinction is arbitrary, or at
least distinct from societal norms regarding why pedophilia is unacceptable.
It seems to me, then, that pedophilia is not a question of moral standards
(consent laws and such) but instead of question of Victorian sexual norms
and ageism (as if they were not one).
I guess getting back to the real question, it doesn't seem to me so much
relevant, but instead to provide a starting point for a discussion of what
the particular limits of thought are in a given condition. Perhaps, though,
I have simply taken this as an opportunity to rant. Either way - :)
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004