[lbo-talk] Irish priests beat, raped children

Lenin's Tomb leninstombblog at googlemail.com
Fri May 22 04:51:49 PDT 2009



> Most conversations about paedophilia and rape are deeply overlaid with
> moralistic posturing, that makes it difficult to put things in
> perspective.

This is a useful point, but it cuts both ways. The desire to Other paedophilic desire, although clearly deriving from a desire to protect children from abuse, surely also participates in that moralistic posturing. It prophylactically implies that those who engage in such Othering do not have taboo desires. If we can

I agree with you that it is quite likely that the majority of parents are not systematically cruel to their children. The NSPCC finds that about 11% of boys and 21% of girls are abused by their parents, so apparently a majority were not. I also agree that most adults don't rape children, that most people find it repellent to rape children. The NSPCC's figures suggest that 16% of girls and 7% of boys are sexually abused, so one assumes the remainder were not sexually abused. So - to confirm what I hope was obvious - most parents, and most adults, are not sociopaths. This doesn't tell us much about sexual desire, which is a contiguous but not identical topic.

I'm also aware that your contribution fits into an argument against the politics of fear and scaremongering that Frank Furedi and others have made, and with which I'm generally in agreement. The trouble is that the contrarianism that comes with all too often involves disavowing real problems.

Elsewhere, you write: "oh please! Kinsey? Long since shown to have systematically falsified his finding."

I'm surprised to see you repeating the allegations of the US religious right. For my part, I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case. I do hope you're not basing your claim on the hysterical and homophobic ravings of Judith Reisman.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list