|
I thought LA made a good point when he said: “That an unwanted groping might be "dangerous," or simply unwanted, is good reason to disapprove; that unwanted gropings are generally without harmful consequence is good reason not to scandalize them, sensationalize them, and destroy people's lives.” You rather contradict yourself by first accusing LA of “hand-waving” these instances away, and then saying that the point of not overreacting is obvious and undisputed! But in fact it is simply not true that the latter point, of not overreacting, is so truistic that “literally no one” is maintaining otherwise. On the contrary, our contemporary anglo culture is all for outing every such instance, and applying the most severe punishments, including absurdly long prison sentences. And it is all for making the “victim” feel the appropriate degree of traumatisation, lest he become a “participant victim” or some such horror. Honestly, where have you been living for the last half century that you think that our society has a reasonable and balanced view of sexual offences? The fact is that we interpret our experiences through our beliefs, and so it is very risky indeed to extrapolate backwards from contemporary claims about the traumatising nature of childhood sexual experiences. I am not “defending” a child being groped by an adult, but I do maintain that what this experience meant to the child at the time, and what it meant subsequently, is not a transhistorical given; it is powerfully shaped by our society's narratives. As LA says, the fact that it is unwanted and may cause disgust is a good reason for disapproving, but not for destroying people's lives. I am reminded of how such incidents used to be dealt with from one of John Mortimer's memoirs: We who lived through English pre-war, middle-class education in single-sex preparatory and so-called public schools, needed no laws abolished to introduce us to the gay world. It was as much a part of the syllabus as cold showers, muddy football fields and chapel before breakfast. I’ve been to visit an old friend, Toby ... We were talking about the prep school we both went to, where Toby was younger than me and considerably better looking. ‘The place was all right,’ he told me for the first time, ‘but Bingo Ollard [who taught us French and History] was always kissing me. Actually I went and told the Headmaster about it.’ ‘Oh yes. And what did he say?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘Do understand, Mr Ollard is what we call a homosexual, which means he likes boys better than girls. And if you look around you’ll find that most of the masters in place are homosexual, or why else would they take on the job? The pay’s not much and you boys can be extremely irritating. I’d like you to remember that, and if Mr Ollard kisses you again, just let me know!’ All this was a long time ago and Toby’s grandchildren go to the same school now, undeterred by the Eloise and Abelard relationship between Mr Bingo Ollard and their grandfather.The notion that boys who were touched up don't complain about it for decades because they thought they were the only ones to whom this has happened is not plausible. I remember reading in D. J. West's book on Homosexuality about groups of boys who were all aware that certain of the schoolmasters had the hots for them, and sometimes touched them up, but found it a source of amusement rather than trauma. And boys are not always as wholly passive in these encounters as you make out. Casual encounters with strangers at cinemas and elsewhere account for a higher proportion of the experiences of boy victims, perhaps because even at this tender age boys are more boldly exploratory and uninhibited than girls. For this reason, the boys’ experiences often carry less emotional significance. Where instances of paedophilia have been exposed at boys’ boarding schools, it sometimes emerges that the whole class has long been aware of the schoolmaster’s interests, and that a high proportion of the boys have allowed some sex play to take place, perhaps joking about it afterwards. This lighthearted openness to adult homosexual advances is a characteristic of boys at or approaching puberty, especially where the social setting or the influence of a delinquent sub-culture counteracts the usual taboos. It is perhaps as much a reflection of the sexual psychology of growing children, as of the ways of sex offenders, that the girl victims of sexual indecency are most often either definitely immature or definitely post-pubertal, whereas boy victims steadily increase in number with the approach of puberty and beyond.I do think you severely underestimate how much boys can be up for sex with an adult when they are not brainwashed that such contact is always traumatising. Read, for example, Paul Wilson's The Man They Called a Monster. And Bromios made a very good point when he said that you can't judge the behaviour of a group from the behaviour of individual members of the group in conditions of severe repression. The child molester is the product of contemporary hysteria, not its cause. As C. J. Bradbury Robinson wrote Damned like this, day after day, by an intolerant society condemned, hounded, persecuted as scapegoat, made the beast of other people's burdens, desires that dare not whisper their name, beneath the thunderstorm of despair, blown by the violent winds of want, mount up into a tidal wave which, all restraint washed away, sanity submerged, unleashes itself upon an innocent, drowning him, leaving in a wake of law-courts the havoc of wrecked lives. And there, gentle persons of the jury, is your very own creation, the child molester, the sexual psychopath, the rapist, the murderer – produced by a society which now steps in to prosecute, condemn, imprison, vilify – execute if they could.Bradbury Robinson is full of wisdom, and I would recommend his volumes, along with the works of Tony Duvert. So let's stop all this moralistic hectoring and silliness. ![]() |