An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages from the Bible.]
But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his > domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a > new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona > MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the > moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
> [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages > from the Bible.]
> But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the > more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do > we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
(i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private life.
(ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
> Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > commemorate the fallen of the first world war?
That is the philistine reaction. Naturally, Fiona MacCarthy's question is rhetorical.
> Or – better – should > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
I think it is a fundamental truth of aesthetics that the value of a work of art has nothing to do with the character of whoever created it, though it is also true that art is created by fallible human beings, not impersonal forces. It is very often the case that great art has a high human cost, and we now know something about the cost of Gill's. His strong erotic drive was a fundamental motivator for his work and was no doubt profoundly intertwined with his religious sense. Had he had hormone injections to quell his libido, like those Alan Turing had to endure, it is perhaps inevitable that Gill's artistic output would have been greatly impoverished or even cut off entirely.
Look at it another way: Suppose Gill had been caught and given the long sentence her deserved for his crimes, justice would have been done, but posterity would have been much the poorer.
>An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his > domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a > new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona > MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the > moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
>[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages >from the Bible.]
> But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the > more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do > we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
His stations of the cross were for many years in one of our local churches and were excellent. However some years ago after the truth about him emerged they were taken down, which I regretted since I belie that we are supposed to love the sinner and not the sin. --
Richard Emblem "God loves each of us as if there were only one of us" St Augustine.
>An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his > domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a > new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona > MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the > moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
>[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages >from the Bible.]
> But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the > more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do > we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> > An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> > His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his > > domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a > > new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona > > MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> > His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the > > moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
> > [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages > > from the Bible.]
> > But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the > > more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do > > we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > > commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should > > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> (i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private > life.
Agreed
> (ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?
I would say always abusive but not always harmful.
Impact of Child Sexual Abuse
It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today. Source: Forward, 1993.
Approximately 31% of women in prison state that they had been abused as children. Source: United States Department of Justice, 1991.
Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused. Source: CCPCA, 1992.
It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers. Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992.
Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem, tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close relationships. Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986.
Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust. Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may extend to all family members. Source: Tsai and Wagner, 1978.
Guilt is universally experienced by almost all victims. Courtois and Watts described the "sexual guilt" as "guilt derived from sexual pleasure" Source: Tsai and Wagner, l978.
Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction, but is more properly understood as one component of the total personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self- esteem. Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.
Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting relationships during the critical early years of development. Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
If the child victim does not resolve the trauma, sexuality may become an area of adult conflict. Source: Courtois & Watts, 1982; Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
There is the clinical assumption that children who feel compelled to keep sexual abuse a secret suffer greater psychic distress than victims who disclose the secret and receive assistance and support. Source: Finkelhor & Browne, 1986.
Early identification of sexual abuse victims appears to be crucial to the reduction of suffering of abused youth and to the establishment of support systems for assistance in pursuing appropriate psychological development and healthier adult functioning . As long as disclosure continues to be a problem for young victims, then fear, suffering, and psychological distress will, like the secret, remain with the victim. Sources: Bagley, 1992; Bagley, 1991; Finkelhor et al. 1990; Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.
Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence. See Medscape
Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence. Inconsistent condom use was three times more likely among youths who had been sexually abused than among the 55 who had not. A history of sexual abuse was also significantly associated with less impulse control and higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. According to Dr. Brown, "These results suggest two things. Abused kids need adequate counseling around abuse issues. A lot of these kids keep re- experiencing the anxiety and trauma for years." The second issue, he said, is that "most therapy does not address current sexual behavior" and the anxieties that sexually abused adolescents experience. Source: Larry K. Brown, M.D., et al, American Journal of Psychiatry 2000;157:1413-1415.
Young girls who are forced to have sex are three times more likely to develop psychiatric disorders or abuse alcohol and drugs in adulthood, than girls who are not sexually abused. Sexual abuse was also more strongly linked with substance abuse than with psychiatric disorders. It was also suggested that sexual abuse may lead some girls to become sexually active at an earlier age and seek out older boyfriends who might, in turn, introduce them to drugs. Psychiatric disorders were from 2.6 to 3.3 times more common among women whose CSA included intercourse, and the risk of substance abuse was increased more than fourfold, according to the results. Family factors -- parental education, parenting behavior, family financial status, church attendance -- had little impact on the prevalence of psychiatric or substance abuse disorders among these women, the investigators observe. Similarly, parental psychopathology did not predict the association between CSA and later psychopathology. Source: Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., et al, Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University, Archives of General Psychiatry 2000;57:953-959. Also see review at Medscape
Among both adolescent girls and boys, a history of sexual or physical abuse appears to increase the risk of disordered eating behaviors, such as self-induced vomiting or use of laxatives to avoid gaining weight. Among those at increased risk for disordered eating were respondents who had experienced sexual or physical abuse and those who gave low ratings to family communication, parental caring and parental expectations. In light of these findings, the researchers conclude that "strong familial relationships may decrease the risk for disordered eating among youth reporting abuse experiences." Source: Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, et al, University of Minneapolis, International Journal of Eating Disorders 2000;28:249-258.
Young girls who are sexually abused are more likely to develop eating disorders as adolescents. The findings also add to a growing body of research suggesting that trauma in childhood increases the risk of developing an eating disorder. Abused girls were more dissatisfied with their weight and more likely to diet and purge their food by vomiting or using laxatives and diuretics. Abused girls were also more likely to restrict their eating when they were bored or emotionally upset. Wonderlich suggests that abused girls might experience higher levels of emotional distress, possibly linked to their abuse, and have trouble coping. Food restriction and perhaps other eating disorder behaviors may (reflect) efforts to cope with such experiences. The report also indicates that while girls who were abused were less likely to exhibit perfectionist tendencies (such as making extreme efforts to avoid disappointing others and a need to be 'the best'), they tended to want thinner bodies than girls who had not been abused. Source: Stephen A. Wonderlich, M.D., et al, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Fargo, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000;391277-1283.
> On 31 Oct, 14:24, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> > wrote: > > Adam Funk wrote:
> > > An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> > > His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his > > > domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a > > > new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona > > > MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> > > His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the > > > moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
> > > [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages > > > from the Bible.]
> > > But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the > > > more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do > > > we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested, > > > tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral? > > > Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC? > > > Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that > > > commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should > > > we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to > > > tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> > (i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private > > life.
> Agreed
> > (ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?
> I would say always abusive but not always harmful.
> Impact of Child Sexual Abuse
> It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood > sexual abuse in America today. > Source: Forward, 1993.
> Approximately 31% of women in prison state that they had been abused > as children. > Source: United States Department of Justice, 1991.
> Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused. > Source: CCPCA, 1992.
> It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times > more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers. > Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992.
> Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, > anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem,
Inappropriate according to whose criteria?
> tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close > relationships. > Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986.
> Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems
The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter.
> in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust. > Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained > relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of > mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may > extend to all family members. > Source: Tsai and Wagner, 1978.
> Guilt is universally experienced by almost all victims. Courtois and
The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter.
> Watts described the "sexual guilt" as "guilt derived from sexual > pleasure" > Source: Tsai and Wagner, l978.
Of course guilt is associated with sex. But have you asked yourself why?
> Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to > genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction, > but is more properly understood as one component of the total > personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self- > esteem. > Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.
More properly says who?
> Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the
The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.
> development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting > relationships during the critical early years of development. > Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
> If the child victim
Blah, blah, blah. I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your quotes.
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
> Aren't we supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin?
But that says nothing about the sinner's work!
> A local church here removed his beautiful Stations of the cross some > years ago.
Surely a central theme of Christianity is that we are all sinners and in need of forgiveness. Think of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican.
I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of while regarding the Stations.
On 1 Nov, 13:24, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
> Blah, blah, blah. I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your > quotes.
I merely looked up the first statistics that google spewed out. I did this to avoid losing my cool as I have no time for those who have sex with children as time and again I come across damaged and suicidal people who have been pressured into sexual relations before they are emotionally or physically ready. Such activities are rarely healthy. Almost always those who have sex with children justify their actions to themselves and others. I am not saying that the child is always harmed but I am saying that there is always potential harm and that it is the adult who is responsible for not abusing his/her position. My attitude is only self-serving in that I see so many hurting people that this has happened to and would wish to spare others this pain.
I trust that you are not so blind to the needs of others that the nature of your reply is self serving.
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Frederick Williams wrote: > celia wrote:
>> Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the
> The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.
>> development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting >> relationships during the critical early years of development. >> Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
>> If the child victim
> Blah, blah, blah. I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your > quotes.
> ... > My attitude is only self-serving in that [...]
Sorry, I didn't mean that you were self-serving, rather that all the many people you quoted were.
My point was this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not begin by saying
For the victim X there were such-and-such undesirable consequences of Y.
Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove. 'You' here is not you Celia its the many and various people whom you quoted, most of whom--possibly all?--can be described as having an axe to grind.
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
> On 31 Oct, 14:24, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> > wrote: > The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter. > Of course guilt is associated with sex. But have you asked yourself why?
>> Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to >>genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction, >>but is more properly understood as one component of the total >>personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self- >>esteem. >>Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.
> More properly says who?
>> Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the >The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.
Etc etc.
Please forgive me if memory deceives, but I'm sure I've seen similar reactions from you before on this topic, although I'm not sure if it was here or on soc.culture.thai where you also post, as a regular visitor to Thailand.
So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under what circumstances?
> If you don't like the word victim use another 'groomee' or something and > address the statistics and argument rather the language used.
My point was this--and surely it's obvious?--if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not begin by saying
For the victim X there were such-and-such undesirable consequences of Y.
Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.
> Or stop trolling
And be reduced to silence? Surely the right to troll is part of the right to free speech (supposing that there is such a right).
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
PG wrote: > So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under > what circumstances?
I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none. My point was this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not begin by saying
For the victim X there were such-and-such undesirable consequences of Y.
Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.
The 'you' here is the various people that Celia quoted, not you PG.
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>> Aren't we supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin?
>But that says nothing about the sinner's work!
>> A local church here removed his beautiful Stations of the cross some >> years ago.
>Surely a central theme of Christianity is that we are all sinners and >in need of forgiveness. Think of the parable of the Pharisee and the >publican.
>I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work >of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be >impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed >to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of >while regarding the Stations.
Well said!
Mike -- Michael J Davis
<>{ Free advice is often worth less than you paid for it. <>{
>> So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under >> what circumstances?
> I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none. My point was > this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not > begin by saying
snip stuff about debating tactics....
So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines. Obviously I would hardly expect those who think sex with children is acceptable to admit as much on a public forum, but thank you for confirming your views anyway.
On 1 Nov, 15:50, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work > of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be > impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed > to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of > while regarding the Stations.
It might be thought that most in the congregation would know little about Eric Gill but while living in the next village to his Golden Cockerel Press I regularly had snippets of decades old scandal recounted while passing by its site.
PG wrote: > So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine > you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines.
Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal. Not only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to think at all about some things. So, for example, just because the public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to. (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's number one in the hit parade.)
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>> So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine >> you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines.
> Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal. Not > only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to > think at all about some things. So, for example, just because the > public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating > the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to. > (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's > number one in the hit parade.)
"the hit parade" - now there's a term I haven't heard for at least forty years! :-) Why, I'll bet you even know what I mean by "Tin Pan Alley"!
However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in which sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define "children" as pre-pubertal boys and girls.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
>> So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine >> you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those >> lines.
> Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal. Not > only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to > think at all about some things. So, for example, just because the > public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating > the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to. > (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's > number one in the hit parade.)
Well as I haven't suggested that you hate paedophiles, most of the above paragraph is a red herring. I find it very odd that you have "no view" on the matter of whether sex with children is acceptable. Feel free to illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to sex with children being acceptable or otherwise, of course. I'm not suggesting you indulge in stereotypes, just to give your informed (or otherwise) opinion.
PG wrote: > I find it very odd that you have "no view" on > the matter of whether sex with children is acceptable.
In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a rational approach.
> Feel free to > illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to sex with > children being acceptable or otherwise, of course.
The most immediate question is perhaps how you define 'child'. It is not so long ago that you could be married at 13 in this country, but now the marriageable age is 16, and there are calls to increase it. Further, after the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, it was an offence for a male to have sex with another male under the age of 21, for fear of corrupting young men to a life of homosexuality.
I think it's bad form to force one's sexual attentions on anyone of whatever age. On the whole, children are unlikely to want to have sexual contact with adults, and there is also the possibility that the child may come to some harm from the encounter, either physically or psychologically, though some of the psychological harm may result from social constructs (i.e. taboos).
On the other hand, consider the situation where the younger person sets out to seduce the older one. Are we to say that the older partner bears the burden of any culpability simply by result of having lived longer?
"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: xrFHm.1026$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> PG wrote: >> I find it very odd that you have "no view" on the matter of whether sex >> with children is acceptable.
> In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the > red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they > don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
Well I wouldn't believe them, personally, particularly on 'hot topics'. Can one really hold 'no view' on Harold Shipman's actions, or closer to home, Fritzl's behaviour over so many years?
> It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the > question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a > rational approach.
Deferring judgment is not the same thing as having no view.
>> Feel free to illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to >> sex with children being acceptable or otherwise, of course.
> The most immediate question is perhaps how you define 'child'. It is not > so long ago that you could be married at 13 in this country, but now the > marriageable age is 16, and there are calls to increase it. Further, after > the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, it was an offence for a male to have sex > with another male under the age of 21, for fear of corrupting young men to > a life of homosexuality.
> I think it's bad form to force one's sexual attentions on anyone of > whatever age. On the whole, children are unlikely to want to have sexual > contact with adults, and there is also the possibility that the child may > come to some harm from the encounter, either physically or > psychologically, though some of the psychological harm may result from > social constructs (i.e. taboos).
> On the other hand, consider the situation where the younger person sets > out to seduce the older one. Are we to say that the older partner bears > the burden of any culpability simply by result of having lived longer?
Quite agree, there are a small number of potentially mitigating circumstances. Which of course, expressed in the above manner, constitute part of a 'view'.
However if one were to be asked, as Eric suggested, to give an opinion specifically on the acceptability of sex with pre-pubertal children, then I would still find holding 'no view' to be very odd indeed.
> However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in which > sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define "children" as > pre-pubertal boys and girls.
Here's one point of view on the subject (that I don't necessarily share)
PG wrote: > "Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: > xrFHm.1026$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com... >> In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the >> red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they >> don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
> Well I wouldn't believe them, personally, particularly on 'hot topics'. Can > one really hold 'no view' on Harold Shipman's actions, or closer to home, > Fritzl's behaviour over so many years?
You are taking 'hot topics' to mean specific cases. I agree, it is hard to be neutral about Shipman or Fritzl. But you did not ask Fred to comment on specific cases.
>> It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the >> question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a >> rational approach.
> Deferring judgment is not the same thing as having no view.
Maybe, but I would be shy about expressing a view until I had come to some sort of judgment.
<snip>
> Quite agree, there are a small number of potentially mitigating > circumstances. Which of course, expressed in the above manner, constitute > part of a 'view'.
Yes
> However if one were to be asked, as Eric suggested, to give an opinion > specifically on the acceptability of sex with pre-pubertal children, then I > would still find holding 'no view' to be very odd indeed.
Puberty is a biological milestone. Unless you couch your sexual morality in terms of reproduction, I'm not sure what significance it has.
loiner2003 wrote: > However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in > which sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define > "children" as pre-pubertal boys and girls.
Gosh no, not if by acceptable you mean acceptable to decent people like you. (After all, it may be acceptable to those who do it.)
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
|
