(Or pedophile, for vowel-bothering Merricans out there:) )
Greer is bringing out a book of photos of pre-pubescent males (called The Boy) and has talked about her own, erm, ‘appreciation’ of their beauty. From here
This writer seems to suggest that there’s no difference between what Greer’s doing and child molesting:
So is what she’s done – and her sexual desires - tantamount to paedophilia? Or is it different for girls (or indeed, feminists)? Or Is It Art?
Ah bloody hell, yet another of my threads bites the dust.
Anyone? Anyone? I’ve got a bargepole here. Look, it’s really long. I’ll lend it you.
<echoes silently into the distance>
The OP is to ‘tabloid’ and sensationalist for me. Sorry.
Of course she’s not. But she is highlighting the on going media hysteria surrounding the subject and, also, pointing up just how impossible it is to debate rationally issues surrounding paedophilia in the modern/current climate.
Fwiw, it might be interesting and educational to approach the book from an artistic/aesthetic perspective, but not this.
Fair enough, L_C. I’m just excited that you responded.
I’m interested in the subject because it appears that there’s been a growing interest in female sexuality, specially with the wide range of slash fic written by women, and it seems that it could be, as you say, a way to debate the whole thing rationally. As a feminist, I was also interested in (and incensed by) the idea that admiring young boy’s bodies could be per se some kind of feminist action. However it may be just Greer being odd again and I’ve blown it all out of proportion.
So sink, dear thread, sink!
bifar - To be honest, I have no idea what’s behind her book. All I know is that I can’t now form any views on the substantives issues surrounding paedophile (whatever they are, I can only guess) without breaking the law e.g. accessing images online or buying material – if there are legal ways of forming my own views on the issue, I’d be interested in them.
And nor you can’t have a rational debate, either in the real world or online, without immediately invoking mass, media trained knee-jerkery and hysteria.
I understand the argument that if one pays to access child porn sites one is contributing to that economy and, by extension, more misery. I don’t quite understand how I’d be contributing to that unquestionable misery by not paying and not actively downloading images, but, rather, accessing sites containing this material.
But then I wouldn’t, cos I can’t - which, to my knowledge, is a unique, and somewhat, peculiar, situation. All very Daily Mail/Express, I’d imagine.
bifar,
Ignore that barge sinking under you feeling for a moment. You’ve struck a chord. What is a pedophile? It’s someone who hankers after a pre pubescent, surely.
Isn’t there another word for those who like them young but not excessively so? ie. for those aged 13-17. There is such a word but I can’t remember it as it never seems to be used, the word “pedophile” being the preferred word by just about everyone.
Without realising it, I was one from the age of about 12. However, I have generally tended to stick to my own age group.
In any case, that is what Germaine Greer should be classed as, not as a pedophile.
After all, she did have a well publicised abortion in her early 20’s, (although you wouldn’t believe it after her well publicised moaning and groaning some years ago about never having been able to have a child).
“ephebophile” or “hebephile” (I forget the distinction between the 2)
As you said, hardly ever used, partly due to the law against sex between legal adults and teens up to 16 in most jurisdictions being the exact same statute as penalizes child molesting.
Who gives consent for these pictures to be taken and published?
The children are too young to give consent.
Is it ok for a book of pre-pubescent girls?
If not why not? If yes please elaborate.
Just my $0.02
So your potential argument is what , exploitation ?
Anyway, I’d imagine, like with the GAP ads, or child acting, etc., the legal guardian/parent gives permission for the child to do it, if they want.
Did I miss something ?
I think the correct term is “tadpole.”
What would you say about a man who came out and said how much he loved to look at pictures of “ravishing” boys?
“Ravishing” has definite sexual connotations, there is no honest way to weasel out of that.
Huh. Is she molesting the kids? I know there used to be a photogapher named David Hamilton who’d photograph very young girls, rub Vaseline on the lens, and call it ‘art.’ There’s also someone—is her name Sally Kirkland?—who photographs her own kids underage.
I’d have to look at motivation before I’d make up my mind. Has she been molesting these boys? If so, she’s a pedophile. Shouldn’t that be the big question?
I’d probably say ‘Hello Headmaster, long time no see’ . . .*but seriously folks * . . .
As I understand it, the analogy is not appropriate. How about a gay man looking at images of girls, salacious or otherwise – like we all do every time GAP begin an advertising campaign ?
Do you SEEK OUT those advertisements? Do you rather vehemently PRAISE how “ravishing” those children are?
Of course she is.
There’s no need to complicate the matter here. Germaine is sexualising children and sexually attracted to children. That’s paedophilia.
I wonder why when some man says he’s sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls (like the manager of Tatu – whom, I just read, said that – that’s the kind of people Germaine has chosen as bed fellows), everyone is rightly disgusted. But when Germaine says she is attracted to pre-pubescent boys – it’s what - art?! highlighting media hysteria?!
I bet you can find plenty paedophiles (including Germaine apparently) who claim their images of sexually exploited children are art, just as you’ll find paedophiles who claim the children enjoy it, like it, wants it, or whatever. Of course all sane thinking people know that’s just rubbish.
Interviewer: Really, What attracts you to boys?
Greer: Oh, everything; sperm that runs like tap water will do
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/greer/
Gaw! Think I’m going to puke!
The real problem is that she’s mainstreaming paedophilia, making it more acceptable.
WinstonSmith makes an interesting point in a depressingly orthodox way. Is the problem here that Germaine is collecting pictures (apparently legitametely as far as I could tell) of boys, or that she is ‘mainstreaming paedophilia’, as WS said?
Because if the only problem is that she’s icky, than what’s to keep everyone from deciding that your preference is icky as well? If she’s shagging little boys, then by all means send the cops after her. But I don’t think there’s much that should be done until she does.
All she says in that interview is that she likes “boys”. From that Winstonsmith assumes she is a pedophile. Hell- I like girls- but I’m not a pedophile. Now if I said “pre-pubescent girls” or “12 yo girls”- and then said I wanted to have sex with them- then yes I’d be a pedophile.
So- how young are the “boys” she is sexually attracted to? After all, she is 60- maybe she is refering to a “boy” of 25? Then- does she say she is sexually attracted to those other boys in her book? or just that she “appreaciates their beauty”? I have seen some young girls and thought them very pretty without thinking sexual thoughts also.
Not the first time I’ve seen this sentiment expressed. I wonder, if the kids said they enjoyed it, how would the “sane thinking people” respond? Have any children in these situations ever claimed to enjoy it?
My first thought was she was trying to make some kind of aesthetic point about human beauty, and that there is no logical reason to imagine it is confined purely to adults. However it does appear from further reading that her interest is lascivious rather then artistic (although that may also be an element). She is quoted in the second linked article in the OP as saying one reason she prefers ‘boys’ to men is “Sperm that runs like tap water will do.” This quote also suggests it is young teenage boys she admires rather then pre-pubescents. If so its a rather mundane fetish and she should try harder if she is trying to shock (and I do think she is). The admiring of teens is far too common a peccadillo to be worthy of the great dame. Yawn.
She’s being excessively vague.
There are a lot of adult males whom I refer to as boys - myself included - because the term seems to fit better. Until we find out her subjects’ actual ages, then I think we might do better not to speculate.
Finally, I note that the story refers to the book as being composed of pictures from “Western art,” by which I assume they mean paintings and whatnot. Apparently, no boys of any sort are actually involved.