A truly disturbing take on THE taboo

Dangerous? No! Says I. Child-abusers make their own justifications to suit them - don't need stories to do it for them. What this story does which is far more important is questions the cause - questions our revulsion of something by making it seem that nature is forcing it on the characters. What are human values against the policies of nature? The author gives us free reign to draw conclusion by avoiding a direct moral stance. Now I had better go and read it.

I read it. V. powerful. I found the way it was written interesting - half like a case study, but almost like a fairytale or story with a moral as well.

Having now read it, I can say that he gives ample warning to anyone who might be offended (they'll go ahead anyway, just for the wonderful, proud taste of offence.) So I think it's a thoroughly fair piece - not judgmental, but an exploration - a documentary, almost.

But does it give an excuse for inexcusable behaviour? I have two daughters (now aged 25 and 16) - and both test out their 'sexuality' on Dad before going out into the big wide world. They lie on you on the sofa, cuddle up and are lovely - but as a Dad you learn to keep that certain indefinable distance from them. You allow the contact because that gives security, comfort and practice and then allows them to talk to you when the caca inevitably hits the fan at some stage. I am proud that my family is able to communicate in a tactile manner as well as in a verbal manner. I still cuddle my boy - and he's 21 - and we both know what we mean when we do it. I've never had the confrontation that occurs in the story but then my girls would never imagine that I would want to have that kind of relationship with them - as indeed do 99.9% of the population. Just as when you have a small baby you begin to understand the pressures that lead to battering their skulls against the wall so when you have teenagers you begin to understand the pressures that lead to child abuse but there is a line of care that is so clear and so obvious that as an adult you clearly have the responsibility never to cross - and it never occurs to you at the time to cross it - and I find it hard to condone those that do. I tend to err on the Karl Wiggins side on these issues because it appals me so much but I hate myself for that kind of knee-jerk reaction (apologies Karl, I know that you are a deep thinker but I use you as a template at times). Oo-er have I dug myself a large hole here?

Excuse? No. Who needs a bloody excuse? We don't need an excuse to eat meat, or wish death upon people, or savage the planet - we just do it because we haven't got the qualities to do anything but what seems to come natural, what we're brought up to do, and what our instincts tell us to do. Certainly, there's conflict of decision - but that's when the complexities of culture and instinct conflict with themselves. An excuse is something that gets you off punishment. Punishment of adults is a stupid concept - it only works when you're programming young children. So no, child abusers have no excuse. They do terrible and saddening things, and sometimes have a terrible and saddening things done to them as well. It just seems a mad cycle at the moment. Maybe when we know and understand more, we can take some truly positive steps. I see Malcolm's piece as an attempt to understand better, so I say it's good, and in the right direction. I also say we're damn lucky to have whatever it is that stops *us* abusing children. Because I don't believe for one minute it's some great moral quality possessed by certain superior beings.

An interesting and challenging read. The childs perspective was interesting in only that whatever abuse had taken place, it was subsequently compounded by the efforts to bring the abuser to justice. I think that there is a real danger in similar cases today that rather than limiting and dissipating the psychological damage inflicted on the victim... the subsequent dealings with the matter and the repercussions of it serves to ingrain and then extend the damage... They are expected to be victims for life after such an episode... and told so.. so as to salve our guilt. This is not to excuse the transgression (against the law) of the parent, who to my mind should be given the emotional lesson of twelve of the best.. and counselling. In response to some of the other posts: If you had an innate deep and healthy respect for people... and this extends to little people... Would you abuse them? When the line is smudged as it almost always is. Which side would you err against if in any doubt? What prevents most people, most times from abusing each other in our society? I never fail to be amazed by cities and crowds.. all these complex creatures with so many conflicting motivations.. yet in the main collaborative, positive and peaceful... As to the question of what 'abuse' is. Just like everything else, it is a cultural construct enshrined in our laws and the acceptable moral standards of our day... that which we get bombarded with in our lifetime. Yet which is subject to evolutionary change. I think the key is this deep respect for human beings, their works, come to think for all of life. How do you inculcate this into people at their most impressionable? When they are children? I think that parenting and education does not directly tackle these issues today. Why aren't there compulsory parenting courses for example that teaches 'parents to be' of the psychological make up and emotional needs of young children? Or even child psychology classes in school to explain to children in appropriate terms what they are going through emotionally and how that will change as they mature... When will these things, these emotional lessons, which we have learned so much about recently, filter through to the education system? It seems to me that far too much is left to ignorance and chance in the upbringing of our children.