> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
... > Most people who have studied it say that rape is a crime of > _violence_, and > that the sexual assault is only the way in which it is carried > out. I fail > to see the legitimate need a would-be rapist has for committing violence > against someone weaker than himself. Straw man -- no one is saying that the legitimate need is to commit violence. I don't think that is *ever* a legitimate need. > Also, most pedophiles or others who > molest children are not Catholic priests who have no legitimate way to > engage in sexual activity. Again, a straw man. Nobody is saying that people do these things because they can't deal with their needs legitimately. > Most children who are victims of sexual abuse > are abused by a family member, sometimes their own father or step-father, > who presumably has access to a legitimate source of sexual activity (the > child's mother) or if not, there's always other willing adult women. Having access doesn't mean anything if the person hasn't even realized what's wrong with himself or herself. And even if they know what's wrong, people act compulsively about these things. You seem to be making an unreasonable set of assumptions about what I wrote. > >so I don't think one can even begin to > >address such problems without some grasp of what legitimate needs are not > >being met and why not. > > Again, most of men do not rape women or even consider it (sorry, > feminists) > and most men do not inflict themselves sexually on children, in > both cases > regardless of whether they have one or more regular adult sexual > partners. What makes one man become a rapist or a pedophile when > most men > in similar situations do not? That begs the question of what is a "similar situation." People who come from superficially similar situations may have had entirely different family dynamics. They may have different genetic dispositions. > I agree that providing treatment to a rapist or pedophile should > be part of > the rehabilitation process. We touched on that a couple of weeks ago in > the discussion about the pedophile who was found to have a brain > tumor and > who said he no longer felt attracted to children after the tumor was > removed. What about all those who do not have such an > easily-identifiable > physical problem that may be causing their behavior? If I had answers, I'd offer them. But I don't have much, nor does our society, I fear, because we're reluctant to talk openly about these matters, or to imagine that we, who don't do such things, would ever, under any circumstances, have done something like that. We openly label sexual predators as "monsters," as though they aren't human. And punish them, offering treatment to very few. And I'm not sure that treatment holds much hope when the whole subject area is taboo in our society. Not that I'd want to justify incarceration that way! My best friend's all-too-recent experience with a brain tumor was a real lesson in judgment for me. Clearly it is unreasonable to demand that guilt and punishment bring about change in a person. We don't know enough about these things. But we do know, for example, that there's a high correlation with ADD and incarceration, as well as between ADD and addiction, even ADD and sexual acting-out, according to current research. But we don't have much of a grasp of what ADD really is. In fact, it seems to be a bunch of things that cover a spectrum of behaviors, some of which are quite advantageous in some situations. And obviously, not everyone with ADD is a criminal, etc. As for how to deal with these things, a more just society -- in my opinion -- would figure out how to let go of the taboos that keep us from talking openly about such struggles. Look at the segment of the population where it is most taboo -- the ordained priesthood, Catholic and Protestant -- and it seems awfully clear that *not* talking is a disaster. But that would deprive the advertising-based media of one of its main sources of titillation and therefore, revenue. Not likely. > Exactly my point. Every time I have heard someone calling for > the U.S. to > be made a "more just" society, upon asking what is meant by that, > it turns > out that the person is saying that there is too big a gap between the > "haves" and the "have nots", so I gave a few examples of serious crimes > where the motivation was clearly not the perpetrator's economic > poverty. Not do such people not know "right" from "wrong", as > most of them > would certainly use every available legal or illegal method to punish > someone who stole from them or who rapes their womenfolk or molests their > children. Economic justice may very well be among the lesser one in terms of its effects on society. Not that I'd use that as an excuse, either. But it's certainly easier to talk about poverty of money than poverty of intimacy, friendships, etc. That's where the wealthy can be poor, indeed, I'm sure. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
