drusky

you misunderstand me Saffron. I really want to know about how sexuality is determined by foetal hormone exposure. This is the drawing room you're in so remember; author, book, publisher, chapter, page number(s), quote...

Good informed comments on a serious subject, particularly Saffron. The aversion to Freud is perfectly understandable. If he's shocking now, imagine what he was like in his day. The idea that our sexuality, far from being pre-determined, is, essentially, constructed, blows away any idea that we might be, at any one time, in control of our (sexual) selves. Indeed, in control of anything, if the Freudian unconscious has anything to do with it. That said, I'd love to hear more about 'sexuality...' as an outcome of '...foetal hormone exposure.' Are you sure you're not confusing sexuality with gender identity? To get back on track; the OP doesn't strike me as particularly well-informed about why adults are sexually, or indeed, otherwise, attracted to children. They come across as reactionary - I don't like this so, er, I'm going to set up a, er, I know, a website... about, er, child abuse, sexual exploitation... er, pornography. And access to it. They are clearly clever. They are clearly concerned. So why don't they go away and learn a bit more about the current state of affairs? Why do they think their background and experience is currently enough? I'm sorry but Freud is totally relevant to the matter of why adults abuse children. Another is Foucault. I think you might find yourself cringing at that thought as well, Saffron. Now you know how I feel when I hear deterministic theories of human sexual identity. How I think this thread could 'mature' is if someone who is involved, professionally perhaps, with abused children, posted.

Thanks for your posts... wow! far too many posts and points raised for me to respond to on the hoof. This is the drawing room after all... A lot of them well considered and put across with conviction. The original poster, appears to be saying something along the lines of, which is what I'm basically addressing, sexual abuse of children happens and needs to be stopped, curtailled, managed, in some way. I might be wrong in this - but it is how I read it. You might, perhaps, not like it, but that is what all the posters on this thread have, IMHO, got in common. We want to stop, avoid, address, sexual abuse of children. Which for me comes down to the matter of how this happens and what it would look like. I've read Freud extensively and, though other writers are out there, he basically sets the benchmark for writing on sexuality, sexual desire and sexual identity. Which is really what we are also talking about. I understand your point about what's called phallocentric Freudian discourse, DJ, but you really might like to revisit, as in read again, a lot of his works. It is less prejudicially biased than you might at first think. Huguenot - you have misquoted me. You might like to think about how that came about. WorkingMummy - you ask a lot of questions. Loz - you're not wrong. A great thread.

Freud, who wrote a lot about sexual desire, argued that the human subject is polymorphously perverse. That is, sexual identity, far from being pre-determined, fixed and immutable, was constructed, influenced by developmental circumstances and lived, environmental experience. At first sight, this could be quite bad news; it means that, potentially, anyone could grow up to find that, sexually, they were inclined to want to abuse children. The good news is that a healthy society could be sophisticated enough to address this - it's just not a good sign of a healthy social structure if it doesn't. We need to know who has access to children, the regulatory processes in place, the accountability procedures, how people and organisations who make key decisions about children are themselves subject to a responsibility framework, reporting and feedback mechanisms and, most importantly, clear lines of sight across the whole matter so that everything is transparent to those who are active participants in society. No censorship is the solution not the problem.

Good point, well made, well spotted...

There's plenty of journalists living locally who don't write for the Guardian. There's plenty who would if they could get a piece in there. It's a very glib assertion to make that all journalists, comedians and actors write or read the Guardian. There's loads living around here that don't. There's loads that do who are politically conservative as well. There's plenty of lazy journalism in the Guardian - there's heaps in other papers and journals. Journalism isn't academic writing. In general terms, academic work would propound a thesis based on extensive research of prime material, collating facts, marshalling these into coherent themes and presenting conclusions with reference to evidence. Journalism tends to have an idea and looks around for the facts to fit this. This is just what journalism is. 90% of what is written would appear to be lazy journalism in the Guardian, as it would in any paper. That said, I do read the Guardian. It's just more interesting.

I don't know who it was - Relate, or similar organisation - once said that McDonalds are where a huge amount of chnage-overs take place. I think they even gave a percentage, something unfeasibly huge like 66%. It would be nice to find that stat on the web somewhere. I cannot think of many places, public or otherwise, that would be so well suited for such a potentially highly-charged moment.

Richard iii is a great story, even without Shakespeare's version.