Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:55:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Victorian Sexual norms and Foucault
From: Asher Haig <ahaig-AT-warped-reality.com>


on 1/31/01 7:43 PM, Lionel Boxer at lboxer-AT-hotmail.com wrote:

> That is sick.  Pedophilia harms children physically and emotionally.  It
> cannot be seen as a question of Victorian sexual norms (That we protect
> children is essential for a healthy society?)  Perhaps we can learn from
> Foucault, but perhaps some of his behaviour was just plain irresponsible and
> evil.  I cannot consider embracing any sort Foucaulian approach as a healthy
> model for one's life.

And perhaps this is Foucault's point. Why not? Why is it that it harms
children physically and emotionally?

I pre-empted those in my discussion - I agree that it can in the current
context, but that context exists because sex has been constructed as
negative and destructive and childhood has been constructed as innocent and
pre-sexual.

As far as irresponsible, maybe if you judge based on "safe sex" practices
and such - depends what perspective you're using. As far as evil, I don't
know how it's possible to make such judgements - what makes something evil?

It's those sort of moral standards that _make_ sex a destructive practice.

---

Asher Haig           ahaig-AT-warped-reality.com
Dartmouth 2004