|
from Social Issues
More on the Pedophilia Question
Two years ago, NARTH produced a paper called "The
Problem of Pedophilia" which was criticized in
some quarters as alarmist.
In that Fact Sheet, NARTH brought public attention
to an article published in Psychological Bulletin
which downplayed the damage done by man-boy sexual
relationships as long as they were "not coerced."
After publication of the Fact Sheet, Dr. Laura
Schlessinger carried the controversy into the
realm of major media.
The issue appeared to fade into the background
again until January of this year, when The Weekly
Standard ran a cover story on the same problem
("Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered," by Mary
Eberstadt, January 1 and 8, 2001) which reexamined
the same trend: the gradual breakdown of the
social consensus against man-boy pedophilia.
Ms. Eberstadt identifies gay culture as to some
extent, harboring--and in the best-case scenario,
failing to condemn--the man-boy "love" movement as
it gradually gains visibility. "Many, many leaders
and members of that movement [gay activism] draw a
firm line at consenting adults," Ms. Eberstadt
says. But "then," she adds, "there are other
opinions."
As she explains:
"Today instead of standing foursquare with the
rest of the public against this evil, the gay
rights movement appears divided. A few proclaim
boys to be sexual fair game. Influential others
disavow pedophilia per se, but tolerate its
advocacy on the grounds of political solidarity
with persecuted groups.
"Still others, in a relatively new development
noted earlier, appear to have opted for a kind of
anti-anti-pedophilia, according to which the
'real' problems for the movement are somehow Dr.
Laura and the religious right, rather than the
facts to which such critics draw attention: e.g.,
that efforts are being made to destigmatize the
sexual exploitation of boy children; or that
positive portrayals of 'inter-generational sex,'
which are extremely rare in the rest of the
culture, are not rare in gay literature and
journalism."
The problem is particular to the gay movement.
"Nobody, but nobody," Ms. Eberstadt notes, "has
been allowed to make the case for girl pedophilia
with the backing of any reputable
institution...contemporary efforts to rationalize,
legitimize, and justify pedophilia are about
boys."
While the response from traditionalists to the
Psychological Bulletin study was outrage, the
reaction from the gay community was (as Family
Research Council observed) "notably muted...Some,
including prominent author and activist Andrew
Sullivan and respected reporter and political
analyst Jonathan Rauch, defended the study."
Most defenders of that study said that
traditionalists should be pleased the
meta-analysis found little or no harm in most
man-boy sexual relationships. Many were in fact
harshly critical of the traditionalists' outrage.
Jonathan Rauch, for example, said that it was the
critics of the piece who were the ones who were
turning out the 'stomach-churning stuff.'"
"According to that view," Ms. Eberstadt wrote,
"the problem is less sex with minors, than the
people who declare themselves against it."
Ms. Eberstadt found new evidence for concern in
the Washington Post's "effusive praise" of a novel
portraying sexual predation upon teen-agers, in
which the reviewer said the novel "takes off from
a sensational subject--forbidden sexuality--to
arrive at unexpected heights and subtleties." The
child partner in the novel became "a better, more
engaged student after the affair gets under way."
The Washington Post story was joined by other
reviews which have been noncommital and blase in
their portrayal of pedophile relationships. A
writer for the New York Times Book Review, for
example, said of another such novel: 'Lost in his
new environment and shunned by the other boys, the
9-year-old James turns for comfort to a kindly,
handsome teacher named Mr. Wolfe--comfort that
very quickly ( and on both sides, very willingly)
turns to sex.'"
"Well, there it is," Ms. Eberstadt concludes. "The
idea of an adult male having sex with a 9-year-old
either horrifies you, or it doesn't. You either
viscerally reject the idea that such a man is
'kindly,' or you don't."
Musing about the letters-to-the-editor that
criticized her expose on the problem of
pedophilia, Ms. Eberstadt observed that "the taboo
against pedophilia is eroding....The meaning of it
all is plain, and exceedingly sad."
"If the sexual abuse of minors isn't wrong," she
concluded, "then nothing is."
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
