Thursday, March 16, 2006
Innocence Lost
The thought that most prematurely floats to the top of my mind after reading this is a thought that usually identifies itself after I realize that someone has been executed for a crime, or placed into solitary confinement for months on end. Certain realities, like the act or expression of paedophilia and its impact in our society are, to a degree, as specific I can get in terms of those thoughts. The thought's presence is not as important as the portent of its ideas and dilemmas are; for instance, child pornography and its causes, effects, problems, and solutions.
I strongly urge myself to discover new perspectives on the thought of crime and punishment in our society, especially in light of the case of some paedophiles. In imagining the causes and effects that impact my world when the media suddenly hound on this issue, it is equally debateable whether this type of propaganda-like nuance of "innocence versus inhumanness" will really help the child who was victimized and continues to be in light of the crime being revealed?
Will it actually take us a step towards finding out why the man sexually confronted a child?
Most of the concept of children revolves around the projection of their vulnerability, lack of responsibility or disassociated view of 'reality' (usually, sex does not matter). And, as a case in point, they are called innocent; lacking maturity, or, gullible. They still believe that Prince Charming's real name is Charming.
At the same time, women in most cultures of the world, and even in American culture, are projected as being the soft (or weak), innocent, guileless being who is an object of lust. The opposite of the conniving, powerful, and sexually dominant male.
In effect, the image of children and women (although boys are more often abused as children than men in adult relationships) as a target is even more inflated by this damned idea that they ARE the symbol. That just because society portrays them as the symbol of the word "innocence", they must, evidentally, act or project themselves as one for the "non-innocent". Then, we may see why there is this blurring of lines for paedophiles.
Why is it that most people, men and women in general (including lesbians, sexually and socially), are attracted to a wide-eyed, full-lipped, soft-skinned, hairless woman on purely surface based bias than to a normal, average, hairy woman? And why is it that children are even more attractive?
There could be more than one answer here. Or even more questions.
Another writer discusses this in eloquent questions too ;)
I strongly urge myself to discover new perspectives on the thought of crime and punishment in our society, especially in light of the case of some paedophiles. In imagining the causes and effects that impact my world when the media suddenly hound on this issue, it is equally debateable whether this type of propaganda-like nuance of "innocence versus inhumanness" will really help the child who was victimized and continues to be in light of the crime being revealed?
Will it actually take us a step towards finding out why the man sexually confronted a child?
Most of the concept of children revolves around the projection of their vulnerability, lack of responsibility or disassociated view of 'reality' (usually, sex does not matter). And, as a case in point, they are called innocent; lacking maturity, or, gullible. They still believe that Prince Charming's real name is Charming.
At the same time, women in most cultures of the world, and even in American culture, are projected as being the soft (or weak), innocent, guileless being who is an object of lust. The opposite of the conniving, powerful, and sexually dominant male.
In effect, the image of children and women (although boys are more often abused as children than men in adult relationships) as a target is even more inflated by this damned idea that they ARE the symbol. That just because society portrays them as the symbol of the word "innocence", they must, evidentally, act or project themselves as one for the "non-innocent". Then, we may see why there is this blurring of lines for paedophiles.
Why is it that most people, men and women in general (including lesbians, sexually and socially), are attracted to a wide-eyed, full-lipped, soft-skinned, hairless woman on purely surface based bias than to a normal, average, hairy woman? And why is it that children are even more attractive?
There could be more than one answer here. Or even more questions.
Another writer discusses this in eloquent questions too ;)
