Article and Excerpts of: Hodophixuality
LAEvaside: To dispel confusion, any usage of the word "pedophile" will be by modern definition, despite my disagreement with the word's current definition. [/laevaside]
The base article in question here (Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope, in case you got lost in the sea of links) is extremely interesting, and proves a variety of things. Firstly, homosexuality and child abuse are separate entities; there is no relation, contrary to the skewed and misrepresented statistics that attempt to prove a connection between the two. Secondly, acceptance of pedophilia is not being gained via "slippery slope" in response to gay rights movements, and Judeo-Christian ethics have *not* always condemned sexual relations between adults and children. On the contrary, such relationships were condoned until the late nineteenth century. The article is rather interesting, so I highly suggest you check the actual article for statistics, excerpts from other works, and more specific explanations. Here are a couple quotes:
Freund stresses that pedophiles are significantly different from men who prefer adult partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, in that their arousal pattern is lacking in gender differentiation. That is, pedophiles are attracted in general to the bodies of children; and since children lack the secondary sex characteristics which distinguish mature males and females – body hair and muscles in men, breasts in women – pedophiles are often attracted to both male and female children. In contrast, Freund has found that true bisexuality among the adult‑ preferring population is very rare.
Basically, there are three categories: androphiles, gynephiles, and pedophiles. Androphiles are to males as gynephiles are to females and pedophiles are to children. As far as sexuality goes, children possess no male/female category as far as this analysis is concerned.
An honest examination of the historical record indicates that Biblical law and the Judeo-Christian tradition, far from condemning pedophilia, often condoned sexual relations between adults and children. The contemporary social and legal taboo against sex with children developed only gradually over the centuries, and did not become firmly established until the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
...the feelings of the victim of rape are not really all that important under Biblical law. Rape was considered a crime by the ancient Jews not so much because it caused harm to the female but because it violated the property rights of the father and the rules of social order. The virgin status of a young girl was a valuable asset to a father hoping to obtain a suitable bride-price from the man who would marry his daughter. If this asset was destroyed before marriage, it was an economic loss to the father. That is why the offender is forced to pay a fine to the father and marry the victim.
Almost self-explanatory. The latter quote pertains to Judaism. The concern was not for the child, but for the father: the issue not psychological, but monetary. Other sorts of details are touched on in the main article. Here's one more:
Sexual intercourse which took place before marital age limits or puberty was not necessarily illicit or sinful. On the contrary, some popes ruled that intercourse below the age of twelve/fourteen had the effect of sealing a marriage contract, as long as such intercourse took place after the age of discretion, which was seven. Once intercourse had taken place, the marriage could not be annulled.
Bizarre quote to moderns ears (or eyes). Contrary to the current idea of "no sex before marriage", intercourse sealed the marriage and prevented an annulment? The age of discretion, seven? Times certainly do change...
All in all, the article is a wonderful read for anyone it interests. Now, if people would just calm down and worry about important issues, like, oh, education and war (or cookie rations)...