But being "real" and even being part of academia doesn't mean that Ms. LaTourneau isn't part of a concerted effort to normalize pedophilia. What better way to get this "normalized" than to have a seemingly credible person like this making the rounds and framing the issue as one deserving of sympathy for the offenders rather than the victims?
Arya, I'm appreciating so much your passion, but especially your research in this arena, and you inspire me to get more educated.
So today I discussed with my sister at length this topic. She is a psychology professor and is fully immersed in the system while getting a good dose of reality outside of it, thanks to mostly me and her hubby, and maybe naturally not being a total tool despite her deep desire to remain comfortable and protected, as any rational woman (any being) is normally inclined. :)
She did say the one thing that has made me think and pause in this discussion so far on behalf of the perpetrator, and despite my proclivities. While we certainly maintain in the 'evil' nature, that being 'wrong', could it be it's not completely about the power dynamic, but instead about imprinting. As distasteful as the subject is, I do think this is worth exploring and could shed some light that might lead toward better understanding. We cannot solve a problem for which we don't understand the source, so I must admit that I have been short-sighted and small-minded in my reactions, b/c I do not understand the source and have made numerous assumptions around it (most which I maintain as common sense) but still some could stand further examination.
Imprinting has proven to be incredibly powerful and I wonder if this is part of the power of porn. She made the argument that tribes in Papa New Guinea apparently have relations in front of their children without any adverse social affect and I can imagine this as normal in primitive cultures. But, where does 'intention' fit into the equation. This is the spiritual issue we are having with this right? Those cultures do not mean to harm or disempower their children, quite the opposite, they are 'teaching' them appropriate behavior for successful adulthood, according to their cultural norms.
Also there are those patterns of imprinting not from porn at all, but maybe just from innocent experience at a young age, where between cousins or neighbors that early sexual exploration is imprinted as 'safe' and 'desirable' and mutual and whatever, which then does not mature, for whatever cultural, or individual reason.
Whereas here and now, the 'cultural norms' seem to be shifting dramatically from the top-down.
Whereas here and now, according to the stories I'm hearing and the data being gathered according to those in the know, this is not about empowerment at all, but about creating victims, about disempowering and using children for personal gain and satisfaction. It is not about passing down success, about ancient rites of passage, but about gaining advantage. Social scientists want to gain the objectivity of other sciences, but in fact, it's just not the same. I think this is being used against them in the credibility game, because we end up in the very unsavory waters of moral relativism.
Is there something spiritual about intention that we are underestimating and maybe even under-exploiting for those of us who understand ethics?
Maybe the road to hell is paved with good intention, but then where is the road of bad intention leading us?