GirlChat #560344

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

Narth tells the truth

Posted by Hierophant on 2012-July-28 21:08:46 EDT, Saturday
  Views: 0    Likes: 0     
http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html

"The Missing Moral Dimension

Catholic moral philosophy, for example, recognizes pedophilia as an affront to the integrity of the person--but such a characterological and spiritual concept may be difficult to conceptualize, and even more difficult to assess, in narrowly psychological terms.

Perhaps the harm will be difficult to measure because it is subtle and values-laden. Maybe the molested boy will grow up to routinely sexualize his same-sex relationships. Maybe he'll have difficulty with marriage and mature intimacy. Maybe he'll not only have a distorted concept of gender differences, but a distorted understanding of generational distinctions as well--which could lead to the molested boy's sexualizing of his own mentoring relationships when he grows to adulthood.

In fact, the molested child who has been hurt the most, in a moral and characterological sense, may actually be the one who grows up as an adult who truly believes--and who reports to researchers (as many of those found by the Rind study did, in fact, state) that they "remember the relationship positively."

But these harms are difficult for psychology to measure. Perhaps, indeed, many of the deepest characterological harms to the child--and to the perpetrator--are outside of contemporary psychology's understanding. So, in a curious twist, maybe the APA--in saying pedophilia was "morally wrong"-- was right.

Psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg said the Rind study didn't find significant harm to the molested child because Rind "was looking through the wrong glasses." Perhaps the day will come, sometime, when psychology recognizes and openly incorporates the missing moral dimension--recognizing our human natures in all their intertwined psychological, moral and spiritual complexity.

And when we recognize that these characterological and spiritual aspects of our natures are in fact inseparable from the psychological dimension, then the pedophilia puzzle, too, may come into focus."

The case against pedophilia has always been about the moral dimension. The argument isn't about anything else other than who's rights come first. Is it the right of the state to forbid their children sexual freedoms or the right of the child to have those sexual freedoms. All other arguments are simply an attempt to avoid this one.

The case in support of circumcision is over whether parents have the right to brutally mutilate their boys or whether their children have the right to keep their body intact. All other arguments are an attempt to avoid this one.

The case against gay marriage is about whether religious fanatics can prevent people from getting married or whether gays should have the freedom to marry.

Moral bullies do not want moral debates to wind down to home. Moral bullies would rather fight for their positions from advanced positions with the hope that they never have to retreat to home. In other words moral bullies do not want debates hitting to close to home.

I think when comes to arguing for freedoms it's better to avoid the false arguments and just bomb the home of the argument.

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses