Excellent article covering

Excellent article covering very daring and difficult subject matter.

Some of Gowdy's reflections are profound, like her story of the spider. The link between imagination (creativity) and compassion is a deep one.

And I agree with her on the perverse and unexamined motivations of indulgent Boomer parents who pimp their young girls for yet more attention. However, part of that problem is the silencing of the father's "No" and an over-celebration of the mother's unbounded "Yes" (speaking archetypally, of course). So the problem isn't actually testosterone, but a dis-integration of male 'place' and role in society. Girls must venture further out on the limb before encountering the bounds that will help to cement the Self into place.

Roots of hate?

An interesting piece for the light it throws on one Canadian writer's attitudes not just toward children as sex objects, but toward sexuality and men in our culture in general.

Personally I don't understand sexual attraction toward children. It's akin to me to someone having sexual attraction toward baby animals, it makes no sense. I can understand seeing the beauty in children. I can understand seeing the beauty in baby animals. Most humans are wired to have a positive emotional reaction toward immature creatures of all sorts. But I suspect any sexual attraction toward prepubescents is more a product of the truly horrible combination of sexuality with shame, disgust, filth and corruption particularly in the religious aspects of western culture. Why that horror toward sexuality leads them to see children as sex objects is beyond me. I can only speculate that it has something to do with sexualizing mythic notions of innocence and purity. Perhaps it's their only alternative to their perception of the dirty corruption of adult sexuality, and the adult body.

As an example, I'll highlight Gowdy's own words of disgust. Admittedly the context is discussing sexual acts between boys and girls who are too young for sexual behavior, but it's interesting to note that her focus is on disgust toward sexuality in general.

Instead of sex being a healthy activity between consenting adults, which children do not have the physical or emotional maturity to handle, and should never have it forced upon them; for Gowdy, sex seems to be a filthy imposition that only adults should have to endure.

North American society in particular seems to reserve a special place of disgust for sexuality. It's almost never portrayed as a normal activity. It's almost always something prurient. In our media, depictions of violence are actually more acceptable to depictions of sex. They are certainly more common place.

I'm also curious why Gowdy has no thoughts about the women who read her books and why, especially since they likely form the vast majority of her readership. Yet she takes the time to villanize the men who read her work.

I also find it amusing that she thinks the world would be less violent with women in charge. Women are every bit as willing and every bit as capable of being violent toward each other and men are. The only difference women would experience without men around would be the fact that they'd need to engage in violence directly rather than use men as their proxies.

I beg to disagree

I think Gowdy grew up in Toronto. As such, her idea that the late fifties and early sixties was an era where young men and boys didn't have access to pornography (which was a lot more explicit than the Eaton's catalogue) is nonsense. And it certainly wasn't necessary to go 'abroad' to find such material. I think she needs to have an honest conversation with a few men who were her contemporaries in that 'era' in order to fully appreciate what most young guys had under their beds in those days.

Playboy published its first edition in December 1953 when Gowdy was about 3 years old. By the time she was a teenager it was available on every newsstand in every corner store, pharmacy, or United Cigar Store in every city or town of any size in the country.

Some retailers kept their stock under the counter - but you certainly didn't need 'connections' to get your hands on one. I'll bet a lot of young fellows of Gowdy's vintage had their first real look at the female anatomy poking through the magazines on a side table at the barber shop on Saturday afternoons.

I think male (or female) fascination with prepubescent and pubescent sexual encounters is a psychological condition that requires (even though it may not respond to) psychiatric treatment.

Without getting all Freudian about it, I think it's a case of arrested development - whether manifested in a man (such as Gowdy's fictional character) or a woman who is preying on the biggest hunk in grade VII.

The argument that this is something ‘new’ attached only to computers and the internet is just too facile for words.

As for the pushing of young females into role playing and fashions that are overtly mature and sexualized - not much new about that either.

There are many shades of grey!

I have to give to the author for writing a courageous book on a difficult topic!

Unless one is really dumb, or a religious extremist, or an emotional wreck, yes, these men are probably NOT monsters!

Are women who marry the arms' dealers or the dictator or the CEO with 3 million dollar houses any better?

There are many shades of grey.

We should also look at whether or not this is about LOVE or just sex?

Sure, sexy clothing does affect men. Is there any woman on earth who does not understand that, yet it is permissible for women to wear what they wish, as long as they do not go bare. Let's face it! Young girls need love and they are not getting it at home because their parents are so busy building that 3rd house or that 1st one, actually, on 2 salaries! But, yes, I am sure that some teenager girls who are also looking for sex, maybe for procreation or for control or for sex. If we raised people in villages without one church, where everyone was accepted and cared for and could have relationships with everyone, and where parents could watch over their children for safe relationships,... we would not have divorce and angry kids and pedophiles.

Are mariages forever really working or are those constructs created by men, and women, religious people that restrict people from loving, truly loving others, not for material or safety reasons, not for sex, but for love, true love, and when it is not a good match, then one would move on?

Pornography: Sure! It might drive some men crazy, but if they had been taught that masturbation is ok (and often better than sex) we all would be better off. Right?

And what about the prisest who cannot have sex?

And what about the priest who abuse a boy, who later grows up to be a pedophile?

About compassion: we need to teach compassion, especially considering the deluge of movies, music videos, books,... that are being shwon unexplained to kids and/or adults who cannot handle seeing dysfunctional interactions and war and crime and fights and ...

Isn't that porn?

There are many shades of grey!

And the pedophiles ... have they been abused before?

Are pedophiles born that way?

There is no doubt in my mind that religion create a lot of these men (and women) by creating men who will not be found to have had sex (sex with a boy is much safer as there is no chance of pregnancy). The priest forbidden to enjoy a very basic need is abused. What would we say about anyone preventing another from eating or having a sheleter or wearing clothes. Those are basic rights. Ture ... having sex include someone else, so there need to be consent. Is there any doubt also that this proests or abused boys or girls will choose a weak and dependent person. So, I think that the abused priest is abused first and then abuses out of sheer frustration or anger. Then, the abused abuses when he or she grows up, in some ways (it might not be in a sexual way). Religion has created monsters, in many more ways than one.

But, are they research out there showing the % of men (or women) who are pure pedophiles versus the ones who have been abused in their childhhod?

Deviations?

Yes, I agree RCheck, we can lay much of the fault for sexual dysfunction at the doors of the Christian Churches, just as we can blame other religions for the low status of women in their cultures. Particularly in the case of women, the huge amount of harm done rarely comes to light and the violence is rarely reported.

Such are the problems which arise when authoritarians interpret dogma only to emphasise various prohibitory rules that are designed more to serve the religion (their Gods) than their adherents.

All's well for those believers who follow the rules, thinking they are "only normal", but it becomes a different thing when others, who for a variety of reasons think otherwise are called abnormal, perverts or deviants, and so to suffer the persecution of "normal" society.

Certainly some deserve it, but when we try to discover reasons for the deviation or to downplay the seriousness of the offence, we then arouse the sensitivities of the so-called Moral Majority, and so applying reason in correcting problems proceeds at a snail's pace.

I think that's the easy way

I think that's the easy way out. You have to look at the context in which Christian sexual mores arose (or more precisely, the Paulist-Augustinian stream of Christian sexual mores, which became orthodox). It started as a reaction against the libertine sexual values of the Roman World (serial divorce, open homosexuality, open pederasty, rampant adultery, etc.). Such was the ambient mainstream culture which Christianity was reacting against. Augustine, himself a reformed sexual libertine, was also living out a highly personalized backlash against unbounded libido and self-gratification that is divorced from what he perceived as God's Law and the Natural Order (ref. Augustine's "Confessions", a seminal work of the Western Canon).

So this is why Christian sexual values went in the direction they did...They were a reaction to the permissiveness and excess of the ambient culture...A reaction we will live out over & over as the pendulum swings. Pederasty, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, swinging married couples, illegitimate children, deadbeat dads, prostituting moms...these are not new things. These debates have all played themselves out before, and will do so again.

Wow, talk about taking the

Wow, talk about taking the easy way NB. All you left out was beastiality in your little list - but then that would be too obvious now wouldn't it?

The edges

Any space or condition can be defined by identifying it's edges, and naming the place between them.

The thing is, when we're identifying elements of human nature, the edges are places of extremes, where people are so overwhelmed by the singularity of the condition that they're hurt by it. Such things naturally elicit disgust and hatred and fear from the rest who live in the middle, far enough from the edge to avoid the actual burnings at the stake.

Sexuality, whether male or female, is fundamental to our nature from birth to death. The edges of it are, on the one hand the extreme behaviours, where individuals are driven to some inappropriate expression, and on the other the asexual individuals who never express their gender roles or sexuality at all.

All living humans exist in between those limits. The thing that makes fiction interesting is the part of ourselves that reflects the characterizations we see depicted there. We all share, to greater or lesser degrees, all possible human feelings.

Authors ought to not just share them, but also be observant and empathetic enough to understand them.

I think I will pass on a novel about male sexuality at the edges, written by a woman who dislikes male nature and finds the expressions of others nauseating. It just seems unlikely to contain many valid insights.

Sex as the root of all evil

Well, NB, embracing Pauline/Augustinian notions of sex being "impure" is precisely the fallacy which has led Christianity down the hypocritical garden path which it seems unable to find a moral way out.

In more modern times our intelligentsia has been taught that sexual license (a la Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) is what brought it down, thus validating the proscriptive moral rules the Christans have traditionally sought to impose.

However, what (among other things) brought down that Empire was the depopulation of the countryside as favourites were given land previosly held by peasants, and who then created the Roman equivalent of corporate agribusiness.

The peasants migrated to the cities, and when a 40-year drought hit the land, food to feed the masses became scarce, and hence the Bread and Circusses. (most commoners already lived on the dole, since "work", as we know it, was performed by the 25% who were slaves)

The "licentiousness" which Gibbon described was only the symptom displayed by a ruling elite which had accumulated all the wealth and power and held it as their right indulge in their affluence. Does that sound familiar?

Getting it wrong by blaming sexuality as the root cause, and not Facist-style excesses as the reason for the Rome's decline is, in my view, the reason Catholicism and hence mainstream Christianity, has always opposed Socialism.

And so it becomes necessary to continue the full authoritarian, prohibitory sexual charade, lest the whole structure begins to crumble. With any luck, that process, now underway, will continue.

ubiquitous - the list wasn't

ubiquitous - the list wasn't relational. It's merely a motley collection of unrelated (and in some cases semi-related) issues which have triggered mass "moral panics" in the past & present. I'm saying it's a cyclical thing. It's an egocentric fallacy to always assume that we in the present are the vanguard at the pinnacle of progress - some things go back & forth over time (btw, I think your "bestiality" comment is predictable & idiotic). I think we're entering a downswing now, as we approach the eclipse of Western civilization and the inevitable minorization and death of Enlightenment values (upon which all modern forms of socio-politico enfranchisement are based). We underestimate just how fragile and vulnerable some of our "progressivism" really is. The majority global cultures now coming into their own are deeply and profoundly illiberal. We're a shrinking drop in an ever-larger pond. It's in the numbers. No babies; no future.

ME2 - I think you've misread me. I said no such thing. Only gullible people seriously claim that it was sex that brought down the Western Roman Empire (as opposed to the Eastern Roman Empire - i.e. Byzantium, which was conquered and colonized my Muslim Turks in the 15th century).

Whatever the truth of your editorializing on the value of Christian sexual mores, I think you will find that orthodox Chistian attitudes towards sexuality are indeed grounded in St. Paul and St. Augustine, and that there has always been a dissenting minority opinion (which may or may not have represented a disenfranshised majority). You seem to think I'm endorsing St. Paul & St. Augistine's almost Manichean attitude towards the flesh. I'm not. But their contribution to Western attitudes can't be glossed over or over-simplified. These roots go deep, and luv it or hate it, we're still dealing with their legacy today. It's best that we at least attempt to understand the roots of things rather than taking popular misconceptions at face value.

NIGHTBLOOM.

NB, I did not suggest that you mentioned Gibbon. You are playing games.

And you are poorly informed if you are unaware that it has long been assumed - at the very least - that Gibbon attributed Ancient Rome's fall to various forms of immorality, and that this was indeed taught in the Universities as proof that the Christian way is best. This latter point is explicitly made by Gibbon himself. More modern scholarship may not confirm the immorality point anymore, I don't know, but don't accuse me of being stupid when you haven't done your own homework.

The Saints Paul and Augustine are known as the most misogynistic, anti-sex and guilt-ridden of the early church fathers - "almost Manichean" as you put it. And that was my point, right? So where were my "popular misconceptions"?

Judging from the above, I think I far better understand "the roots of things" than you, since I described some of those roots in my post (where you haven't), and rather than saying "get used to it", I offered the hope that those roots are crumbling, as they should.

It's not taught in

It's not taught in universities anymore, ME2, and hasn't been in generations. It's a giant canard.

And you're wrong that this is a Christian thing particularly. It is and always has been a dialectic within all religions. ALL religions and cultures have had major issues with sexuality, which suggests the religious animus against indulgence of the flesh is actually a symptom of something in our make-up rather than a root cause (and please, no liberal-left fantasies about "Noble Savages" someplace...even the aboriginals marginalized their "Two Spirited" peoples - another grossly inflated canard used to serve contemporary political objectives). So religious proscriptions on sexuality are a symptom - it's in our nature to attach social economy to our sexual behaviours.

The word "misogynistic" is almost meaningless when applied to pre-modern peoples. You can't impose late-20th century bourgeois norms on people of the past. That's puerile. Their realities were totally different from ours. But more importantly, you're missing my point: Paul and Augustine happened to be on the winning side (now the losing side) of a drawn-out dialectic that had many facets. There were always dissenters. The persecutions prove it. This pendulum has swung through the bedroom many, many times.

Pardon me

The difference between the classical Greek and Roman approach to sex and gender couldn't have been more different from the early Christian one.

Right from the start, it was the early Christians’ aggressive statements and their refusal to join in the social rituals at the centre of community life that set them apart from the Romans. Their willingness to die for these principles, though exaggerated, bearing witness to the fact.

Equally, Christian ideas about celibacy and virginity threatened Greek and Roman values concerning sexuality and marriage.

As for the Church and its 2000 year record - of saying one thing (not least about celibacy) while it was doing something quite different - there is just no more room for that argument.

Though I do wish I'd said...

The most salient point in this article, I think.

Early Christianity

There were lots of varieties of "christianity" around some 2000 years ago, including the orthodox. It wasn't so much as the orthodox position was crafted in the first few centuries, but during that time all the alternatives were vilified and expunged from the collective consciousness, or at least the attempt was made. There has been a discussion going on for years on this subject over at www.NewCafe.org, in the spirituality forum, under the title of Early Christianity. NB you have information that would inject new life into that topic.

Personally I think that "religion" is the institutionalized mind control branch of Patriarchy. Most of what the Rational mind labels as "human nature" is actually the dysfunctional result of the patriarchal control and domination model. And in our society women are just as patriarchal as the men. I still can't decide who I have the greater contempt for, the patriarchs or the co-dependent whores that enable them. I'd sure like to know what sick and twisted mind commodified the vulva and made it a scarce resource.

Today's Christianity

It is my belief, ov, that we humans have forever debated what should be the common rules we can employ in order to facilitate the best of relations between people, and to define our obligations to the tribe/state. We do so because both common sense and experience tells us that without such rules, we are prone to internal discord and thus prey to external forces.

Creating a God(s) to stand above competing forces within a society, and which cannot itself profit from those rules, allows these "God-given" rules for the common good to be applied to all. Those rules change from society to society, and in that sense are often contradictory though logical.

Obviously, a society which has such internal cohesion can be readily mobilised for group projects or for defense and aggression.

That lesson has not been lost on ruling elites, and throughout recorded history among the first actions of the conqueror or the oppressor has been the abolishing of the previous religion and the imposition of his own. Thus the authoritarianism of many religions such as Christianity, make them great partners for the State.

This has worked well for Christianity, but our more modern times are sounding its death-knell as challenging forces mount faster than than a tired theology can cope with it all.

Modern scholarship is revealing the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of contrived myths, and this is further supported by the knowledge of Evolution. Technology, as in the form of the Pill, has checkmated pregnancy as God's punishment for fornication. Catholic countries, long havens for Fascism and huge populations of poor, are witnessing economic revival and challenges to Church authority. The ongoing scandals re celibate priests and their sexual adventures are focussing attention upon the long-held misogynistic attitudes inherent in Christian theology. Education, which teaches the difference between thinking and believing, is cutting away at the base of church memberships, and hence the neocon support for "voucher" schooling.

One of the biggest challenges to traditional Christian theology has been our change in attitude toward homosexuals, who have been present - and productive - in all human cultures, and in most other animal species as well. We now know for sure that this is the result of genetics, and that it cannot be changed into heteosexuality with "God's help".

Christian theology, designed for when people drove donkey carts, has accumulated too many "oncogenes" and not enough "antibodies" to survive the kind of remedial surgery which has worked in the past. Events today move at lightening speed compared to the times when changes took generations to come into effect.

It's long past due for a new religion to spring up. Some held out hope for someting to come out of New Age, but its focus upon me-first feelgood instead of service to others has rendered it incapable of offering other than what we just got from Dowdy.

We Need Spirituality

Good post ME2. It's a difficult subject with lots of sides to it. There is no doubt in my mind that the current system is dysfunctional, but I think that at one time it adequately served to coordinate society, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten to where we are. Control as a means of coordination is very limited however and only works when the rules are simple, and there is a low rate of change; when things speed up and/or become more complex the whole control thing falls apart. I think the control coordination dynamic is at the root of this.

Personally I'm an advocate for the evolution of consciousness, and I think that dysfunction is the driving force. Without dysfunction we wouldn't have any motivation to evolve, and we wouldn't know which problems we needed to surmount.

Lots of definitions of what spirituality is, as compared to religion. I think the main difference is that the former strives to educate the person into an adult consciousness, while the latter attempts to keep them in child like dependence which is much easier to control.

Quote:There were lots of

Christian orthodoxy took a while to crystallize, and then underwent a major split when the Western Roman Empire fell. But you have several Apostolic Churches that are recognized today as "Catholic", besides the Roman Church. Even while the Apostles were still alive there were dust-ups between Jewish followers and pagan converts (not least over the requirement of circumcision...another issue we're still debating...Like I said, these issues never really go away, they just settle down for a while).

But the real kicker is that those multiple Christianities are resurfacing today. They're like latent genes in the fabric of Christianity itself that have lain dormant after their initial suppression.