Jim wrote:
> I agreed with much of what Rick wrote, but would like to take a
> different tack on one thing he said.
> The point I would make here would be that there are undoubtedly
> religions somewhere in the world that actually advocate
> adult-child and other forms of abusive relationships. So Rick's
> comment might apply to Christianity, but could not be claimed as
> a universal religious position. If we went far enough back in
> Christianity we might even find cases where the Bible was used to
> justify such relationships, perhaps especially when they
> involved non-Christian groups that did not warrant the
> protections of Biblical teachings. And, of course, "altering the
> age of adulthood" is hardly a minor or simple issue and would
> certainly benefit from or require a scientific orientation.
This is true--but bear in mind that in cultures where child-adult sex is
institutionalized (and many have existed, and do exist), there is no
evidence whatever that the child is harmed by the experience (assuming the
acts involved do not include physical injury). Thus, the definition of an
"abusive relationship" itself is a cultural one, not a static one and is,
itself, based not on science but on Judeo-Christian values.
Any anthropologist can provide many examples of cultures (both living and
historical) in which child-adult sex is considered part of the normal (and
healthy) development of the child, and psychologists who have examined those
cultures in depth have (to the best of my knowledge) failed to demonstrate
the slightest harm to the child as a result.
I'm not (obviously, I hope) suggesting that we condone child/adult
sexuality in our society. But I am, in fact, suggesting that the evidence
indicates fairly strongly that at least a substantial part of the reason
children in our society are harmed by sexual interactions with adults has
noting to do with the acts themselves, but instead has to do with the
"moral" principles we instill in them that such acts are, in fact, "wrong."
And those principles come, not from science (which would, by necessity, take
into account the apparently successful nature of other cultures), but from
religion which defines morality in absolute terms. It is entirely possible,
therefore, to define the harm done to such children as "religious abuse"
rather than "sexual abuse."
If there are any anthropologists (or cultural sociologists) on the list who
can cite examples, it would help to clarify the principle I'm referring
to--otherwise I can dig some up at work next week, if desired.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
2111 Emmons Rd.
Jackson, MI 49201
