LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

@aidan,

Aidan,

Just because people don't talk about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are many victims who are Foxfyre's age who have said publicly from their own experiences sexual abuse was all too common in the 1950s.

In the case of sexual abuse, not talking is a very bad thing. It makes kids more vulnerable and it makes dealing with abuse much more difficult. The people who started the movement to address sexual abuse by bringing it out into the public were people who were victims in the 1950s.

They will tell you the pain caused by society's inability to talk about sexual matters at the time.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I'm not advocating not talking- no- not at all.
I'm just saying that I think to myself all the time how lucky I was that I was never molested.
And how perfectly placed my parents' trust was in the people with whom I was trusted to be with.
It strikes me at times how many times it COULD have happened - and how lucky I am that it never did.
And I don't know why or what the difference was or is.
I know that I often stayed overnight at friends' houses where my parents had never met the parents.
By the time I was a parent, I would never let my daughter sleep over someone's house unless I'd met the parents.

Change in reality or perception? I don't know....

But I do think that pedophilia and promiscuity are viewed differently now than they were and I don't think this is a positive change. I also don't think that children being born to young people who are not ready to parent and provide a supportive family, which is something that DOES happen more often now than before, is a positive change either.
I don't.

1 Reply

@aidan,

I appreciate what you're saying Aidan. Yes, I appreciate that my daughter didn't look at work in terms of women's work and men's work when she was growing up and it never occurred to her that her gender should be a barrier for anything. Nor has it been for her. My generation did separate men and women into appropriate categories of occupations to which they should aspire. I ignored that of course, and for most of my adult life I have held jobs that were once considered the baliwick of guys only. One of my close friends, a black woman, frequently said that she was discriminated against for being a woman much more than she was discriminated against for being black. She did okay for herself though.

I can't remember anybody ever explaining 'child molesters' to me at any time growing up, but because of the religious influence and the values we kids grew up with, we knew. We instinctively knew the difference between appropriate and inappropriate language, touching, hugging etc. and we knew what was wrong, and we didn't tolerate it. As I previously said, we knew who the 'funny uncles' were and knew how to keep a safe distance from them at gatherings. They did provide us with a lot of ammunition for giggles.

My hubby and his friends used to frequent a hobby shop run by a guy with an affinity for young boys. They wanted to look at the merchandise in the shop, but they knew not to go in alone and they knew to keep moving in the shop. On the theory of no harm, no foul, that was the way the situation was handled. (That guy also provided a lot of ammo for jokes and giggles--still does when we get together with that group.)

In other words, we were sexually innocent but not as naive as some would assume that we were. As you mentioned, promiscuity was a social taboo and a girl with a reputation for having 'round heels' also was a subject for many jokes and giggles. I am reasonably certain however that most premarital sex among the kids of our generation did involve a ring or a date or resulted in one shortly after. The social taboo against a reputation for being 'loose' and the huge taboo against a pregnancy out of wedlock really were strong deterrants.

I did my best to instill those positive values in my kids as you say you did with yours. Are people happier now with promiscuity and sexual freedom being much more socially acceptable? I don't know, but I rather doubt it.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Aidan,

How is way we view sexual abuse today not a good thing, compared to the 1950s where it happened, but was simply not discussed?

We are more now aware of abuse. We are more supportive of the victims. We are more likely to believe victims when they come forward. And we do more to make educate kids to make them less vulnerable.

Again there is strong evidence, from researchers as well as from the victims themselves, that pedophilia was a problem in the 1950s... and this means that the fact it wasn't talked about was a bad thing (not a good thing). Again, victims from the time will tell you this most emphatically.

In fact it was victims of sexual abuse from the 1950s that brought the issue to the forefront in the 1970s.

Maybe I am not understanding you; Given the fact that the sexual abuse of children was a real problem in the 1950's as it is now--- what do you think we are doing now that is worse than the 1950's?

Promiscuity and teen parents (provided abuse is not involved) are unrelated issues.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The good old days, when women were women, and pervs were pervs.

0 Replies

Here's what I think we're down to:

Foxfyre thinks that the good old days were better than today.

Murder and teen pregnancy were higher then, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

Racism and sexism were far more prevalent then, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

Birth control is far more available today, which allows people to have more premarital sex (because people wait longer to get married), so Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

Life expectancy was far lower, and the standard of living was far lower, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

Must've been some damn fine ginger ale.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I don't doubt that childhood sexual abuse was and always has been a problem in probably every culture and society.
I agree with you that the willingness to acknowledge the fact that it happens and to make children aware that it can and does happen so that they are more prepared when faced with certain situations, is imperative.
Especially today.
Because I do think that the fact that it is now possible to organize and access a wider range of children more readily, make it a more real and present danger to more children today than ever before.

Think about it - twenty years ago- people who would do these things to kids, in the main, acted alone. They weren't able to access information about each other and various available children as readily as they can now.

There's an article on the front page of today's Guardian about seventy-seven trafficked children lost from a home that was set up to protect them:

Quote:

Organised criminal gangs have exploited a children's home beside Heathrow airport for the systematic trafficking of Chinese children to work in prostitution and the drugs trade across Britain, a secret immigration document reveals.

The intelligence report fromt he Border and Immigration Agency, obtained by the Guardian, shows how a59 bed local authority block has been used as a clearing house for a trade in children that stretches across four continnents.

At least 77 Chinese children have gone missing since March 2006 from th home, operated by the London borough of Hillingdon.

Only four have been found. Two girls returned after a year of exploitation in brothels in the Midlands. One was pregnant while the other had been surgically fitted with a contraceptive device in her arm. ...

These people are communiciating and cooperating with each other to do this stuff from as far away from each other as China, Brazil, Japan, Malysia and Kenya.
That couldn't have happened even fifteen years ago.

And I don't think the sexualization of little girls in our society is helping the situation at all. I was just reading another article about Miley Cyrus- I can't remember which newspaper it was in - I think the Sundy Times, and I've already recycled it- but even Disney targets these girls and gives them a name - they're like ten but they look and act older. It's a cultural phenomenon. It has a name And I think it's dangerous.

Again, I'm not one to ignore the good and focus on the bad. But I'm also not able to ignore the bad and only highlight the good.

I venture to say more children were out of the reach of pedophiles before the internet.
I really do believe that.

That's the part of our current culture and its sexual mores that I think is detrimental and dangerous.

And promiscuity DOES play into it. Because sex as a valuable and valued expression of self has been devalued and debased in our culture. And when that happens, the abusers can convince themselves they're taking less than what they're actually taking,
So yes, I do think it's an unfortunate and negative direction that aspect of our culture has taken, in comparison to how it was in other generations.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Think about it - twenty years ago- people who would do these things to kids, in the main, acted alone. They weren't able to access information about each other and various available children as readily as they can now.

40 and 50 years ago, paedophiles certainly knew how to connect with each other - organizations like churches and school boards made it easy.

Forty years ago, I knew boys who self-mutilated, and one who committed suicide as a young teenager, because of sexual abuse in the Anglican church choir/church camp community. They were my contemporaries. Things were ugly then. Things are differently ugly now.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

And I don't think the sexualization of little girls in our society is helping the situation at all. I was just reading another article about Miley Cyrus- I can't remember which newspaper it was in - I think the Sundy Times, and I've already recycled it- but even Disney targets these girls and gives them a name - they're like ten but they look and act older. It's a cultural phenomenon.

Nothing new here either. The sexualization of young girls goes back hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Child brides were the reality in many cultures. Some were protected from sexual intercourse until puberty, some were not.

Perhaps some people were not aware of child sexualization until recently. Doesn't mean it's a new phenomenon. Just think about Brooke Shields and Jodi Foster and some of their work as children/young teens. That is already several decades back. The discussion/controversy re child sexualization simply isn't new.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

40 and 50 years ago, paedophiles certainly knew how to connect with each other - organizations like churches and school boards made it easy

.
Did you mean pedophiles know how to connect with each other or access children?
Churches and school boards made it easy to find other pedophiles or vulnerable children?

Even if someone did join a church or school board and find another pedophile happened to be among the membership - I think that'd be much more a chance meeting and fluke than the organizations that exist today and are accessed through the internet.

Quote:

Things were ugly then. Things are differently ugly now.

Which is what I said. There are good and bad aspects to both eras. But I do think children are more vulnerable to various modes and aspects of sexual abuse and pedophilia now through internet and photographic technology tan they were forty years ago when the means for it didn't exist.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm guessing <snip> But that's just a very good guess

good to know that your ego is as strong as ever

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

That suggests to me that I am hitting major nerves.

around here, we're usually just laughing or as chai would put it LOL

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Perhaps some people were not aware of child sexualization until recently. Doesn't mean it's a new phenomenon. Just think about Brooke Shields and Jodi Foster and some of their work as children/young teens. That is already several decades back. The discussion/controversy re child sexualization simply isn't new.

Those were two actresses. It's much more generalized within the population now.

In terms of child brides - an arranged marriage between two royal families to cement a political alliance is an entirely different and actually much rarer event than the acknowledged sexualization of 'tweens'- normal young preteen girls today.

Besides- we're talking thirty and forty years ago - two generations - and the author and Foxfyre seemed to be focusing their attention on the changes in American culture, so that's what I was addressing.

I'll say it one more time - I can see good and bad changes.
And I think the sexualization of girls at a younger and younger age - normal average girls who aren't expected to marry and produce an heir to retain their position and wealth and families place in dynastic culture - is unfortunate and dangerous.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Don't know how big my ego is but your ego that you seem to interpret as moral authority to pass judgment on others seems to be in as good a form as ever. But I'm happy to give you a good laugh. Does it make you feel even more smug and superior to say unkind things like that to other people?

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
40 and 50 years ago, paedophiles certainly knew how to connect with each other - organizations like churches and school boards made it easy
.
Did you mean pedophiles know how to connect with each other or access children?
Churches and school boards made it easy to find other pedophiles or vulnerable children?

all of the above

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Just a few but pertinent corrections:

DrewDad wrote:

Here's what I think we're down to:

Foxfyre thinks that the good old days were better than today.

Foxfyre thinks that those aspects about the 'good old days' that were introduced in Williams' essay were better than what is the norm today. Neither he nor I think everything about the 'good old days' were better than day and I have said as much in this thread, and he has said as much in other writings.

Quote:

Murder and teen pregnancy were higher then, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

I will concede that teen pregnancy was higher then but that is because women married much younger than they do today. Teen pregnancy outside of marriage was not a common thing then at all. Having children outside of wedlock was an issue that Williams raised in his issue.

I'm not sure whether the murder rate was higher then than now. If it was that was a bad thing but that was not an issue raised as one of the values Williams was addressing and is a different subject altogether.

Quote:

Racism and sexism were far more prevalent then, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

I did not say that, nor did Williams. Neither were an issue that he raised and both are separate subjects.

Quote:

Birth control is far more available today, which allows people to have more premarital sex (because people wait longer to get married), so Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

\

Birth control was quite available and utilized then as necessary, but most people who married wanted kids. But yes, I think less promiscuity and encouragement of mutually monogamous relationships was definitely one of the plusses of that day for reasons I have already stated.

Quote:

Life expectancy was far lower, and the standard of living was far lower, but Foxfyre thinks things were better then than today.

Yes, there was sexism and racism and much more poverty then than now, but nevertheless there was much less violent crime and much less fear between people as Williams expressed in his essay. His point was that the shared moral values of that day made for a more peaceful and positive coexistence in communities. Neither he nor I held up sexism and racism and poverty as anything to condone or aspire to, but these are separate issues that are not so easily tied to a less positive coexistence in communities now.

It helps to focus on specific issues in a discussion like this rather than take an all or nothing approach. Shall we throw out our current generation because there are negatives within it? Or can you separate the good stuff from the bad stuff in the current generation? Why is that so difficult to do with the generation that grew up in the 40s and 50s?

Must've been some damn fine ginger ale.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

But I do think children are more vulnerable to various modes and aspects of sexual abuse and pedophilia now through internet and photographic technology tan they were forty years ago when the means for it didn't exist.

Actually, kids are safer today than thirty years ago. "Stranger danger" and internet predators are wildly exaggerated.

Child abductions by strangers actually rare

Quote:

...

First, violent crimes against children have declined steadily over the past generation. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 81 out of every 1,000 children between the ages of 12 and 15 were victims of violent crime in 1973, compared with 44 out of 1,000 in 2005.

And, second, the worst of those crimes - kidnappings, rapes and murders - are being committed not by strangers hunting innocents but by family members, neighbors or trusted adults the family knows.

In fact, the kidnappings of Carlie and Jessica by complete strangers, while terrifyingly sinister, are fairly rare events, representing only about one in every 2,900 abduction cases.

...

People may be more aware of the dangers to children, and we may see it on TV more often, but this, too, has actually improved.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

So, if some things were better then, and some things are better now... what's your point?

You seem to keep flailing around trying to make the case that sixty years ago things were really better, in spite of all the evidence that at worst it's a mixed bag.

Setanta seems to have hit closest to the target, which is that you're really upset about is that things are different now.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I didn't say one word about stranger abductions.

Not really an issue I've ever worried about to be honest, and I AM an admitted worrier when it comes to my kids.

I do believe that there's an organized society of pedophiles via the internet, which did not have the means to organize or exist in Foxfyre's time.

I do believe that these people can access more children more readily - even if it's only visually and electronically.

I do believe that this has the potential to either directly or indirectly affect more children than was previously possible, because the technology simply didn't exist.

I do think this is a negative change. I also think this increased exposure to something that once was much more clandestinely and privately accessed has maybe lessened the perceived impact of what a violation of these children this can be.

I know even with myself, when I read about another computer seized and images found, I react with much less disgust- it's so much more commonplace now that I just think, 'Oh god, another sicko,' without realizing that what these people are looking at are real, live children.

Sort of like how on the internet, people can be much more impolite to each other than they ever would be face to face.

The impact seems lessened somehow - so the damage seems less- but it's not.
It's becoming pervasive to the point that it's sickening our society, yet we seem to pay less and less attention to it, and perhaps underestimate its affect on the way we treat and look at our children.
Even if we look at them as needing more protection than they actually do.
And I think this is a sad and negative effect of our times - granted- along with a lot of great changes.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Aidan wrote:

And I think the sexualization of girls at a younger and younger age - normal average girls who aren't expected to marry and produce an heir to retain their position and wealth and families place in dynastic culture - is unfortunate and dangerous.

Here, I agree with you. This is perhaps the one thing I think was an advantage of the 1950s. Although the image of women as innocent creatures waiting for a nice young man to take care of them isn't that much better.

The role models I would choose for my daughter don't match either of these.

0 Replies

LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know