As one would come to expect of him, Ed has a talent to write clearly, in an almost brutal way, about touchy subjects. In his latest writing, Blind Herd Instinct he writes an interesting take on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. This complements a longer take on the issue of paedophilia. Both writings are thoughtful and strongly recommended, but please do read with caution: Ed’s blunt style when dealing with sensitive issues is an advantage, but it can drive the unsuspecting reader away scared. Don’t do that; stay put, think, and read it through.
It always seemed strange to me how the law would treat going after, say a 12 year-old girl and a 17 year-old girl as being the same. While the law would deem both things as “paedophilia” I would resist calling the latter as such. Maybe the gentleman who is suing for the affections of a 16 year-old girl is a fool, but not a paedophile nor pervert.
In most Latin cultures this has a very different take. I know that hard limits are full of exception on both sides of the lines; but here, in my country, if you go after a 12 year old young lady, you could get killed; but if that same lady would have the age of fifteen or more, that would be acceptable. You might be rejected and told to go away by the girl or her parents, but you would definitely not be seen as a paedophile. And if the girl is willing, the parents may grant permission for the courtship to proceed in open view of everyone. Eventually, of course, this should lead into marriage.
You might know that in our cultures, the 15th birthday of a girl is quite an occasion. That is because the fifthteenth birthday officially signals for a young lady the transit from childhood to womanhood. From now on, she’s “fair game” for courtship purposes. While I despise such customs, and also the drawing of such hard limits with no regards to the inner conditions of the lady’s development, I still can see that this approach is more understanding of human nature than blindly blanket-labeling the attraction for teenagers under the age of consent as “paedophilia”.
A closing thought: The Church needs sorely to help here, as is the case in all the areas of sexuality, especially male sexuality. Believe me, one of the reasons males are being increasingly put-off by churches, and are rejecting churches, is because churches try to be “sensitive” in everything, but have almost no consideration for an honest, down-to-earth, in-your-face, no-holds-barred and no-dash-phrase-lacking-;) approach to male’s sexuality issues. The Church’s struggle against pornography is a joke, an utterly absurd pharisaical and Victorian joke. The Church’s orientations agains sexual ethics in the workplace (things such as how to deal with issues of harassment, or flirty employees, etc) are almost non-existent. End of rant.
What do you think?