As chance would have it, I just posted this on another Thread:
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 11:04:17 AM PDT
Astrin Ymris says:
I found this quote very telling:
"...Last week, when I wrote about the alleged offense, David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, parsed why a parent might overreact in the case of sexual abuse: "We have an instinctual desire to protect our kids," says Finkelhor. "A sexual threat is seen as a mortal threat against their future and their reputation. It is almost like a trigger where we are completely entitled to feel righteous anger."..."
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/20/why
A "moral threat against their reputation" against which men believe they are "completely entitled to feel righteous anger". That sounds very close to the mindset of the man from Northern India who decapitated his daughter for being sexually active after divorcing her husband. IOW, Finkelhor seems to think this father's extreme reaction was more about his daughter's "lost virginity" than her psychological trauma. That, and he felt he had moral justification to unleash his fury without normal social controls.
I don't know if that was the reason for this father's blow-out or not-- he may have been a sexual abuse survivor himself who reacted in rage and horror because of his empathy with his daughter. But the fact that Finkelhor considered this a plausible explanation shows the belief that "improper" female sexuality is a defilement still underlies our thinking about child sexual abuse.
The desire to keep women from having control of their bodies and sex lives seems driven by something very powerful on a subconscious level. If you think about it, 90% of the Culture War is the fight to keep everyone but straight men's sexual expression trammelled. I sometimes wonder if "religious belief" is a pretext, rather than the real motive.