Perversion and religion


Posted by annieO ® , Oct 01,2003,11:31   MetroBlab

I came across this article after googling "pedophilia". Something about JJJ's fascination with young female tennis players struck me as a little off and I was curious what the clinical definition was (the child must be under the age of 13 and at least 5 years younger than the adult).

Anyway, this just seemed like good fodder for this board.


"In other words, does this wave of allegations not suggest a correlation between religious belief and sex crime? In fact, is it not plausible to think that the more extreme religious belief becomes, the more likely deviant activity becomes? Think about it. Religion tends to frown upon the expression of normal sexual desires, thereby exacerbating them, building them up without providing socially acceptable avenues of relief. Religion tends to construct a climate of secrecy in which sexual infractions are swept under the rug, thereby providing de facto immunity for perpetrators. Religion tends toward fatalism in morality � "leave it for Jehovah" � thereby failing to correct the corruptions in its own midst. Are these not precisely the preconditions, even the warning signs, for sexual disturbance?"

Full article:
http://www.pervscan.com/archives/000091.php


Followups



Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- annieO
Posted by bluemountain ® , Oct 01,2003,13:08   MetroBlab

I don't buy into that explanation, my belief is that pedophiles in general don't 'learn' to be pedophiles nor are they that way b/c of otherwise suppressed sexuality. They are what they are. How do you explain married men who are pedophiles? Although I think there is something to the notion that pedophiles may be attracted to certain religious groups, say the Catholic church, b/c they feel a certain level of insulation and protection as well as having more opportunity to molest children by being around more kids as a priest or perhaps as teachers, coaches, etc. as well(that not having anything to do with religion).
Of course, I can tell you that if I discovered that one of my kids had been molested by an adult, there would be a swift administration of the death penalty. As far as I'm concerned, they are in the same category as a dog with rabies. To be destroyed. Or at the very least, incarcerated for life no parole so that they will never do it again. Because if they get out, they will always do it again.


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- bluemountain
Posted by Michael ® , Oct 01,2003,13:27   MetroBlab

I don't buy into that explanation, my belief is that pedophiles in general don't 'learn' to be pedophiles nor are they that way b/c of otherwise suppressed sexuality. They are what they are.

Now there's a carefully thought out and articulate alternative explanation.
~m.

--modified at Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 13:28:04


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- Michael
Posted by bluemountain ® , Oct 01,2003,13:41   MetroBlab

Then what's yours? That these otherwise normal people (almost always male, btw, figure that one out- I guess the religion/perv thing just doesn't apply to women) who would be otherwise engaged in fulfilling adult relationships (either straight or gay) are warped into abusing innocent children b/c of the evil influence of religion? Like I said, I don't agree.
Can overly strict religion make people have a warped view of sexuality? Definitely. But to extrapolate from that that it somehow bears responsibility for 'creating' pedophilia in a person where no tendencies would otherwise exist is specious.


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- bluemountain
Posted by SnM ® , Oct 01,2003,15:17   MetroBlab

Cultural norms must be taken into account. In ancient Greece, older men were expected to have sexual relationships with male youngsters (how young I don't know and I'm too lazy to look it up). This was considered normal and developmentally positive behavior. So. How "perverse" is it, really?

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- SnM
Posted by DnB ® , Oct 02,2003,13:38   MetroBlab

I didn't spend too much time on this, but, it does give an idea of different societal expectations.

The epitome of love in these ancient societies was pedastry - a sexual relationship between an older man and a young boy; today it is a very serious felony. To the Greeks this was something positive and beautiful. All the Greek greats - Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Plato, for instance - had young boy lovers. And many waxed ecstatic about it, such as the Greek poet Propertius: "May my enemies fall in love with women and my friends with boys."


further:

http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/athlit02/lecture6.1.htm


First, our evidence for homosexual relationships playing a critical role within Athenian culture is strongest for the aristocracy (which not coincidently, most strongly segregated the sexes). Second, while Athenians (or at least aristocratic Athenians) encouraged young men to welcome the attention of older men, these relationships were not necessarily sexually active. The most important function of these relationships was to educate young men into the demands of their identities as aristocratic members of a democratic community. More specifically, some have argued that these relationships taught young aristocrats to negotiate difficult issues of power.

Athenians typically used the language of eroticism to describe this relationship. The older partner was the erastes, the "lover" and perhaps sexually dominant partner. The young man was the eromenos, the "beloved" and perhaps sexually submissive partner. It was appropriate when the boys had grown old enough and learned what their lovers had to teach that these relationships lose their erotic focus, that the young men take wives and produce sons of their own, and when they were old enough, take the role of "lover," themselves. Men of either age group who didn't grow out the relationships were frowned upon. Men who did not marry and produce children were looked down upon. Men who when they had ceased to young continued to enjoy being sexually submissive, were despised. Middle aged men who had homosexual relationships with each other were despised. Conversely, men who enjoyed being sexually dominant with younger men, suffered no social sanctions, if they conducted these relationships properly. If the object of the dominent Athenian's affection was a slave or foreigner, Athenians didn't give a damn. If the object of affection was an Athenian boy who could grow up to be citizen and soldier of Athens, Athenians cared very much. Proper conduct of these relationships required that very young boys be free from any such eroticization, and that even with age-appropriate (just before the age when boys start to get their first facial hair) boys, a boy's father approves of the relationship. Young men, moreover, were supposed to behave modestly, and if they "led their lovers on," insisting on gifts, etc., they risked being accused of prostituting themselves (with consequences for their civic rights).


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- SnM
Posted by bluemountain ® , Oct 01,2003,17:24   MetroBlab

It's extremely perverse. Sorry, that's an absolute value for me. It involves an adult taking advantage of a child and exploiting that child for the adult's own sick pleasures. Consent implies the cognitive ability to enter into a mutual agreement of some kind and we have as a society established that children (and I'm not talking about some 17 year old here) should not be expected to bear the brunt and responsibility of that kind of decision. B/c semantics aside, what it boils down to is that perverted adults (usually male) are USING these kids and don't give a damn what damge they cause. As long as they get their rocks off. Pedophiles are by definition exploiters. It's not just another value-neutral sexual orientation, at least that's my opinion.

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- bluemountain
Posted by SnM ® , Oct 01,2003,17:54   MetroBlab

I'm not arguing with you. Yes, that's an absolute value for you and me and many of us. But it's an absolute value within the relative framework of a culture. It wasn't considered bad in another culture; indeed, it was considered nurturing (I think; if I'm remembering my history right, that is). Lotsa things considered bad in our culture are ho-hum in others, past or presnt. I'm only asking: Is it relative?

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- SnM
Posted by GSMOT(tm) ® , Oct 02,2003,10:21   MetroBlab

I'm having a hard time believing the ancient Greeks condoned man-boy sex as normal. I have a feeling it's one of those urban myths that was helped along by the writings of one or two ancient Greeks. History has judged the Romans who engaged in orgies (i.e. Caligula) as deviant; that's not to say I think orgies are *deviant*, but others do. (No, never been to one; never been invited to one; never heard of anyone going to one, either---DAMMIT!). The ancient Hebrews had specific guidelines of sexual behavior spelled out in the Old Testament.

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- GSMOT(tm)
Posted by SnM ® , Oct 02,2003,10:54   MetroBlab

It's not an urban myth; the question is, how pervasive was the practice, and how accepted was it? I know some of the ancient scholars condemned it. But I also know some condoned it. What I don't know, and don't have time (or interest, really) to look up is the latest research into it, and the current opinions of experts in that area of history.

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- SnM
Posted by annieO ® , Oct 02,2003,11:16   MetroBlab

In support of different cultural bais assertion, I remember (and have a photocopy of somewhere in a box in the crawlspace) an article written by an anthropologist on a tribe of folks that lived way up in some secluded mountain range (no, I can't remember which one). This tribe had truely bizarre sexual practices. Sexual commentary and vulgar jokes comprised much of their "polite" conversation. Also, it was considered "proper" for any male of the tribe to force sexual relations on a girl-child as young as 4 or 5 years (it was considered a sort of "training"). Also, marriage, although a formal, legal state, did not in any way imply sexual fidelity. However, along with what we consider absurdly inappropriate sexual behavior, they had EXTREMELY strict incest and homosexuality laws, most of which were punishable by death. If I recall correctly, guys couldn't even speak to their female blood relatives after they reached a certain age. And they were constantly having to send their young girls off to other tribes to find husbands because the blood ties were often too close within the tribe.

So, yes, I do believe that culture has much to do with our sense of morality. The sexual contact was not considered harmful to the children. For instance, the fact that the enitire society was open about the adult-child sexual contact, meant there was no stigma attached to the child and no emotional estrangement from the parents or friends. Also, the author noted that the contact didn't seem to be harmful physically.

I, having been raised in this society, find most of that society's normal behavior to be repulsive. But the fact that I still speak to and even hug the adult male members of my family would cause me to be put to death in their society.

It is all relative.



Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- annieO
Posted by GSMOT(tm) ® , Oct 02,2003,11:26   MetroBlab

But I suspect that this "social norm" within the tribe got started many years ago when a few perverted members somehow gained power and could call the shots.


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- GSMOT(tm)
Posted by SnM ® , Oct 02,2003,12:37   MetroBlab

Highly unlikely; that's not generally how enculturation works.

Anyway, what I want to know is, why hasn't Markie involved himself in this thread. It's really all about him, after all.

--modified at Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 12:39:19


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- GSMOT(tm)
Posted by SnM ® , Oct 02,2003,10:53   MetroBlab

It's not an urban myth; the question is, how pervasive was the practice, and how accepted was it? I know some of the ancient scholars condemned it. But I also know some condoned it. What I don't know, and don't have time (or interest, really) to look up is the latest research into it, and the current opinions of experts in that area of history.

Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- SnM
Posted by Kevin Knack Jr. ® , Oct 01,2003,16:29   MetroBlab

How "perverse" is it, really?

Answering that question requires examining the amount of psychological harm that inflicts human beings at various stages of development following sexual intercourse with an adult. During early childhood, the amount of trauma seems to be quite severe, suggesting a just basis for criminalization by society. Since there is no universal point at which the risk of trauma disappears, the decision to criminalize sex with minors at a certain age has a pragmatic, rather than a morally absolute basis. Of course you already know this, so I will simply concur that your point is taken about the moral subjectivity of the term �perverse.�

An interesting page for reference.


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- bluemountain
Posted by DB ® , Oct 01,2003,14:10   MetroBlab

"almost always male, btw, figure that one out"

The ones that get caught, anyway. The women that do this (and there are plenty) just don't leave behind the evidence and injury that men do.


Perversion and religion

Re:
Perversion and religion -- DB
Posted by annieO ® , Oct 02,2003,10:57   MetroBlab

Where I got my "clinical" definition

http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html

it classifies 5 types of pedophile and female pedophiles have a type all to themselves:

Fixated (or exclusive type) pedophilia: The fixated pedophiles consider themselves to be trapped in childhood. They usually have minimum relations with adult peers, and relate better with children. They are identified mainly as men and their primary interest is in boys, with whom they develop boy to boy relationships. They typically plan their activities to promote access to young boys through church, neighborhood, or sporting activities.

Regressed (or nonexclusive type) pedophilia: On the other hand, the regressed pedophile is not ordinarily attracted to children. Those with regressed pedophilia are typically heterosexual married males and most likely to sexually molest 8 or 9 year old female children. Some pedophiles complain of anxiety or tension related to employment or marital relationship as precursors to pedophilic impulses, as well as alcohol or drug usage. They view the child as an adult substitute, and relate to the child in an adult to adult manner. The first sexual encounter is usually sudden and unplanned.

Cross-sex pedophilia: Male pedophiles who sexually molest young girls are typically diagnosed with regressed pedophilia. They commonly befriend the young girl and gradually engage in sexually activities, enticing, rather than forcing, the child. The activities frequently include fondling the child, encouraging the child to fondle the male, and possibly oral stimulation, but rarely sexual intercourse.

Same-sex pedophilia: While most pedophiles who engage in or fantasize about same-sex children do not participate in heterosexual adult sexual relations, they also deny being homosexual. Instead, the pedophiles are more sexually aroused by male and female children than by either gender of adults. The average age of molestation among boys is between 10 and 12. Sexual activities typically involve fondling and adult masturbation and/ or oral stimulation of the boy, and anal sex with the adult male taking the active role.

Female pedophilia: Although the vast majority of pedophilia is among males, female pedophilia does exist. However, female pedophilia is not commonly reported, possibly because the female's affection shown toward a child is seen as maternal, as opposed to sexual in the males. Additionally, male children do not view sexual relations with adult women negatively, and therefore may not report the incident. However, it is reportedly fairly common for young males (12 years old or younger) to engage in sexual activities (usually sexual intercourse) with adult women, usually in their twenties, who are usually known by the boys and typically friends of parents, neighbors or baby-sitters.