Yesterday's news of a man being questioned for taking photographs of a sunset from his own home, which happens to overlook a youth centre, elicited the following comment from user Rich, Chelt.

"So what a guy has been slightly offended by some officers turning up at his house. Its better than a Paedophile taking pictures of innocent children and using them for sexual gratification or posting them on the Internet!"

www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucest...-detail/article.html

This interests me because it seems to show a concern not for harm to children but for preventing the possibility of pleasure being obtained by persons who may, for whatever reason, enjoy looking at pictures of fully clothed children already available to view in public. It is hard to see how a child is harmed when, unknown to him, someone obtains sexual pleasure from looking at such photos. We may find the pleasure odd and even distasteful, but without any evidence of harm done, and how <i>can</i> there be harm if neither the child nor anyone else even knows, it is hard to see why these suspicions should, even if true, constitute evidence of a crime. Homosexuality was outlawed for years for the same reasons. People found it unnatural and distasteful even though it caused no harm.

It seems we need a sexual scapegoat and an object of fear in order to make ourselves feel morally superior and pure. "Pervert" was the term used in the past to describe gays. Now it is now used to describe paedophiles. Sometimes it is used to describe anyone displaying even statistically normal sexual interests.

It is as if we are ashamed of our sexual motives, but find redemption for that shame in hating a perceived other whose preferences lie outside the bounds of our own sexuality. We must hate those who are different from us and concern for he children, though certainly a noble motive in itself, is often merely masquerading as an excuse of this deeper insecurity.

Sorry if this is already obvious to readers here, but I thought that the post I quoted above was a good example of the sort of thinking I have in mind and this general point has been playing on my mind for some time.

Cracking, thoughtful post, Jim. And your views coincide with mine almost exactly. The line that really interests me, though, is;
"It is as if we are ashamed of our sexual motives, but find redemption for that shame in hating a perceived other whose preferences lie outside the bounds of our own sexuality. We must hate those who are different from us and concern for he children, though certainly a noble motive in itself, is often merely masquerading as an excuse of this deeper insecurity."
I'm not sure I'm with you 100% on that. I think that the hatred is almost a recognition of something within themselves... think of how many men {however much it may be denied nowadays} have a thing for "naughty schoolgirls". Shout loudly enough and everyone will believe you....
This is a point I'll come back to. It certainly deserves wider discussion, and I thank you for giving me something to post my thoughts on in a board which is, it seems, in danger of simply being hijacked by one particular poster.

this very point was made by Germaine Greer on a Aussie panel show tonight in her unique way..ranting that parents are terrifying their own children by listening to the media so their kids are being taught they must fear the streets and every bush when the most dangerous place for any kid is their very own home.

Love Greer-she cuts through the bullshit and gets straight to the point.

She made a similar point on BBC's Questin Time a while back and was accused by a member of the government of defending paedophiles. She seemed a bit baffled by his response and said how we confuse the pleasure many get from look at beautiful young people with the antics of a very few dirty old men.

She was right, of course, but politicians and media make capital out of pedo scaremongering and so will resist any attempt to introduce a level of common sense.

Thanks, Locked Out,

If I understand correctly, you are putting forward the idea that those who loudly condemn paedophiles are themselves possessed of paedophile tendencies which they are anxious to deny, and that their outrage derives from an inner revulsion at their own sexual inclinations. Is that it?

Certainly that view jives with the claim that ten times as many children are abused by their parents as by a stranger, because if that's the case, very many adults must have paedophile tendencies of some sort. It is also consistent with the claim by some that our culture in general sexualizes the young.

Best wishes,
Jim

Germaine Greer published a book of nude photographs of adolescent boys a few years back. If she had been a 'dirty old man' instead of a famous feminist, she would have been imprisoned for producing child porn.

I agree 100% with her point that we confuse child sexual abuse with the appreciation of youthful beauty. However, it is feminists like her - using old copy and paste arguments over 'sexual objectification' that she helped promote - who have been responsible for these draconian laws and hysteria over paedophilia. Perhaps she should be directing her comments against them rather than 'dirty old men'.

I think there is a lot of confusion between feminism and the current 'pedo' hysteria and I don't think either are related.

I've read the Female Eunuch (which Greer herself says is not very well written) and there is no connection between anything regarding females empowering themselves with equal rights with abuse.

The current hysteria is tabloid and politically driven with an agenda.

Some so-called feminists may have jumped on board but Greer is the first one to shout down those who promote this hysteria.

One is Erin Pizzey who is now claiming her career as a 'feminist' was misguided but when you read her story of the hideous child-hood she had it appears she has confused elements of that with her choices in life.

It's inevitable that those who are rabidly pushing this fear will use anything they can...and currently the feminist movement is under attack.

In a way-it's like all 'movements'..they get hi-jacked along the way by others with agendas to the point where the pioneers like Betty Frieden and Co throw their hands up in despair.

Political correctness'is another..hi-jacked by nitwits the world over.