From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Repression Resurfaces (Was: MacKinnon )
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:04:16 GMT

In article <carol.721259026@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>
>>    Almost half of all women, by contrast, are raped or victims of
>>    attempted rape at least once in their lives. Almost 40 percent 
>>    are victims of sexual abuse in childhood. [!!!!!!!] (p. 174)
>
>Obviously Robert finds this statistic outrageous. But perhaps he is
>falling prey to the exact male view of rape and sexual abuse that
>MacKinnon referred to - that it must involve penetration. Children may
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be sexually abused without even being touched. Sexual abuse on children
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>may take the form of being shown pornography by adults, or having adults
>perform sexual acts in front of them. It may be through adults talking
>sexually to them, or telling them all they will ever be good for is sex.
>Child sexual abuse can occur at the hands of the teacher who touches you
>in odd places as he leans over your desk, or the brother who uses you for
                  ^^                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
>his own experimentation, or the man who masturbates in front of you on
                             ^^^^^^^
>a train, or the doctor who pokes and prods unneccessarily while your
>mother waits on the other side of the curtain...... None of these
>scenarios are the father rape type thing that many people who don't know
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>better think of when they think of child sexual abuse. But these 
>situations must NOT be belittled - they are sexual abuse and they do
>cause enormous amounts of damage to a child's growing sexual awareness
>and sense of self. Personally I suspect that figure of 40% to be on the
>conservative side.

   ["All men are rapists, and that's all they are"]

Yes, according to *some* definitions of "sexual abuse," an infant is
sexually abused every time some adult changes its diaper!

Let's see, the tight-ass Protestant churches denounced so-called
pornography as "sinful," claiming that it corrupted children. Then,
more enlightened views prevailed, and parents were told that it was
healthy for children to have some exposure to sexually-oriented
material, so that they can accept it as a natural part of life.
Now, it's becoming "sinful" once again.

I suppose that when a group of children "play doctor" with each other,
that's "sexual abuse" too, no doubt? 50 or 75 years ago this kind of thing
was viewed as horrible because it was "sinful." Then more enlightened
views prevailed, and childrens' interest and curiosity in sex was
seen as normal. Now repression is rearing its ugly head once again,
this time using the pretext of "feminism" instead of "religion."
(Actually, feminism has long been associated with prudery and
repression. The ultimately-successful Prohibitionist movement of the
19th and early 20th century was largely feminist-led.)

Of course, when we broaden the definition of "sexual abuse" to include
so many things that the rate approaches 100%, we trivialize it so much
that the entire issue begs to be dismissed. (A related example: New Age
guru Bradshaw says that 99% of all families are "dysfunctional." Having
in essence waved the concept of a "normal family" out of existence, he
has rendered the concept of a "dysfunctional" one trivial and
superfluous.) 

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism