>>From: Asher Haig <ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>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).
>
>Maybe I am missing the point and this is all just theoretical meandering.
>Sorry if I have disrupted the flow ...
>
>That is sick. Pedophilia harms children physically and emotionally. It
>cannot be seen as a question of Victorian sexual norms (That we protect
>children is essential for a healthy society?) Perhaps we can learn from
>Foucault, but perhaps some of his behaviour was just plain irresponsible
>and
>evil. I cannot consider embracing any sort Foucaulian approach as a
>healthy
>model for one's life.
I agree with you both to an extent. I think that there is no necessary
harm when a person is as young as perhaps, 14 or 15. But beyond this
there can be actual physical harm. F surely does not say that power
forms the strength of tissues, body size, etc. If the subject is truly
socially constructed, then a subject that was very young could be very
mature. The age of consent is, as is evident from the level of teenage
sexual activity, quite arbitrary and un qualified, but there is a limit.
As for the evil argument, there is a way to use F's arguments to show
certain practices to be, in a sense, evil. Within children's current
mindsets, to have a relationship with them would be dominating.
Oh! Back in an hour, Ed is on ;)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>>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).
>
>Maybe I am missing the point and this is all just theoretical meandering.
>Sorry if I have disrupted the flow ...
>
>That is sick. Pedophilia harms children physically and emotionally. It
>cannot be seen as a question of Victorian sexual norms (That we protect
>children is essential for a healthy society?) Perhaps we can learn from
>Foucault, but perhaps some of his behaviour was just plain irresponsible
>and
>evil. I cannot consider embracing any sort Foucaulian approach as a
>healthy
>model for one's life.
I agree with you both to an extent. I think that there is no necessary
harm when a person is as young as perhaps, 14 or 15. But beyond this
there can be actual physical harm. F surely does not say that power
forms the strength of tissues, body size, etc. If the subject is truly
socially constructed, then a subject that was very young could be very
mature. The age of consent is, as is evident from the level of teenage
sexual activity, quite arbitrary and un qualified, but there is a limit.
As for the evil argument, there is a way to use F's arguments to show
certain practices to be, in a sense, evil. Within children's current
mindsets, to have a relationship with them would be dominating.
Oh! Back in an hour, Ed is on ;)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com