Re: how do modern day egyptians feel about the ancient egyptians?

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:25:46 -0500

Yog-Sothoth wrote:
> Goat like "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> while
> grazing in <10l912bp0ca8b9@corp.supernews.com>, made the following
> shapes:
>
>>Yog-Sothoth wrote:
>>
>>>Goat like "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> while
>>>grazing in <10l6nt8j3luu845@corp.supernews.com>, made the following
>>>shapes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yog-Sothoth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Goat like "Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> while
>>>>>grazing in <e24cc9f24c.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, made the
>>>>>following shapes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <MPG.1bbc104d73549d098acf0@news.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>> Yog-Sothoth <Allotrios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He had sex with a 9 year old. For ***'s sake if this was not rape
>>>>>>>then nothing is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rape is non-consensual sex. Look it up in the dictionary. There is no
>>>>>>evidence that the girl was not consenting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you think a 9year old has adequate experience to know what she is
>>>>>consenting to? That's why we have laws that ban underage sex
>>>>>regardless whether the subject consents or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Please note that I am not defending sex with under-age girls; however
>>>>>>marriage with young girls is an established part of many cultures and
>>>>>>Mohammed was not particularly evil for doing what his culture approved of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you mean his culture was evil? Shouldn't Mohammed being wise and
>>>>>all do the proper thing?
>>>>>
>>>>>Paedophilia is not only wrong in a particular social context. It is
>>>>>physically and psychologically wrong because the victim is not ready
>>>>>for sexual relations.
>>>>
>>>> You will, of course, provide us with evidence that this is a
>>>>universal in all cultures at all times.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you serious? You need evidence that it is harmful to have sex
>>>with someone who is not ready for it? Or do you mean you actually
>>>believe that it is NOT harmful to have sex with a 9 year old girl
>>>regardless of the social context?
>>
>> Nice straw men. "...it is harmful to have sex with someone who
>>is not ready for it" is begging the question. Of course that is
>>true. But you haven't demonstrated that all girls under the age
>>of, say, 12 are not ready for it. As Katherine noted, at least
>>some girls in ancient times reached menarche as early as age 7;
>>and some 10-year-olds appear to have borne children.
>
>
> I don't have to demonstrate that.

        You really aren't very good at this, are you? Yes, you do have
to demonstrate that. It is your contention, therefore your duty
to support it.

  And Katherine didn't bring any
> evidence that there are girls at that age who are sexually mature.

        She mentioned facts that I know to be true from my own study.

> Yet you take her word for granted even though the vast
majority of
> girls at that age is definitely biologically not ready.

        I didn't take her word for it. I've studied the issue myself,
in graduate work in both archaeology and psychotherapy. You
yourself have backed off from your absolute stance, and now say
'the vast majority of girls at that age'. I assume we are
talking about girls of 9 years old, but the facts support the
occasional even younger girl being biologically ready for
childbearing.

        Even then, of course, we have not touched on the fact that all
humans are sexual beings, from infancy. This is not to say that
sexual _abuse_ by older persons is justified, but it is to say
that the issue is more complex than you seem to allow.

>
>
>> Your second question is of the same nature, which you may
>>consider answered above.
>
>
> So basically you tell me that sometimes (that be 1 out of 1 billion
> probably) it is justified to have sex with a 9 year old. Well allow
> me to laugh at the idea that Mohammed chose that girl at 6 because he
> knew that at 9 she'd be mature.

        You are not paying attention. I am talking about both
biological readiness and cultural norms regarding intercourse
with young girls.

        The cultural norms you appear to be supporting draw a line at,
what, 16 or 18 years of age, and declare that anyone younger
than that age is out of bounds for sexual intercourse. This is
true even though it is now extremely uncommon for girls to reach
their menarche after 16. Most cultures that have ever existed
would consider our norms silly, and even possibly dangerous to
their society.

>
>
>> If, as is undeniably true, it isn't possible to reliably define
>>an age of menarche; and if there is a cultural value that makes
>>marriage and sexual activity with girls our culture would
>>consider too young for such; then any attempt to set an absolute
>>standard is not useful for the study of human society and
>>culture, both now and in the past.
>>
>> That said, you sure can have your own standard, and may have
>>the opinion you choose about those cultures that fall below that
>>standard in your view. But no culture is required to consult
>>with you or anyone else on their own standards.
>
>
> Unless you display here evidence that a 9 year old can be BOTH
> biologically and psychologically ready for sexual relations, your
> point is moot. I strongly believe that even at 12, very few girls
> reach maturity, and believe it or not, we haven't changed that much
> in the past 1000 years.

        What evidence have you provided that 9 year olds can't be ready
for sexual relations? You raised the subject, you made the
original contention, and so far you have not supported it with
necessary and sufficient evidence. Instead, you assert your
opinion as fact, and you produce evidence from one culture,
modern Western culture, as though it had universal relevance.

        And you are quite wrong about how much we have changed in the
last 1000 years. At least in the industrialized world,
improvements in nutrition in the last century have worked to
lower the average age of menarche. An interesting site that
gives information about this is:

http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm

        A chart on that page gives mean ages of menarche for various
cities and countries around the world, information gathered
between 1965 and 1985. The youngest age of menarche was among
urban rich folks in Venezuela. It was 12.0 years of age. The
highest was among the Bundi of New Guinea, at 18.0. Descendants
of Europeans in the USA showed a mean age of 12.8 years, while
descendants of Africans in the USA showed a mean age of 12.5

        A scatter plot of age of menarche against years between 1850
and 1980 for working class women in Oslo, Norway, showed a very
marked decline from a mean of about 15.6 years in 1850 to less
than 13.4 in 1980.

        The web site makes the point that this apparent dramatic
downward trend may have been partly the result of a prior upward
trend in the early industrial period; but that the trend seems
to be real. Historical evidence from Roman and other cultures
gives results that are in general similar to those around the
turn of the 20th century.

        I will only make the observation that the data presented above
are mean ages, and therefore suggest that menarche among girls 9
years of age is not as uncommon as you seem to think.

>
> <snipped>
>
>> As for the issue of female sexuality, most cultures in the
>>history (and pre-history) of the world would find our definition
>>
>>>I repeat. I don't care if his society thought it was ok to rape a 9
>>>year old. I know for myself that it is harmful to the girls body and
>>>mind and that's enough for me to condemn Mohammed as a paedophile.
>>
>> If it was rape, then I agree with you; and so would most
>>cultures past and present. But if the 'rape' designation comes
>>from our modern definition of a 9 year old as incapable of
>>giving consent, then I don't feel competent to make that call in
>>this case.
>
>
> There is no question of it being rape or not, since at that age a
> girl cannot be ready for it.

        Oh for God's sake. Your assertion, no matter how often you
repeat it, is not evidence of anything except your personal
beliefs.

>
> I suggest you have a look at this:
>
> http://www.innocenceindanger.org/innocence/faq_clues.html#38
>
> And particularly:
>
> "2. Why are sexual relations with an adult traumatic for the child?
>
> The expectations of the paedophile and those of the child are not the
> same. Even when the children may sometimes appear consenting, if not
> indeed provocative, they are actually seeking attention and
> affection. The paedophile responds with an adult sexuality which
> children are not equipped to understand or cope with as an adult
> does, and which can only be traumatic for them. Even when the sexual
> relationship is not experienced as such when it occurs, it will be so
> later in adolescence, when the child becomes aware of what he/she has
> undergone."

        I know all of this far better than you. I've dealt with
victims of child sexual abuse in therapy, as well as their
families and their abusers. Don't try to teach your granny to
suck eggs, Yog.

        What else I know is that the site you provided is useful only
for cultures who hold to the general views about children's
sexuality, and the nature of marriage, as we do. You don't seem
to understand that projecting your, and my, views on this onto
other cultures and other times is cultural chauvinism. It
interferes with a real understanding of those cultures, and
causes us to make mistakes.

        In the world today, I submit that we, at least we Americans,
can't afford to make any more mistakes in understanding cultures
different from our own. We may feel all superior and virtuous
comparing our values with those of others; but there can be an
extremely heavy price to pay for that smug satisfaction.
Learning about others is far more interesting and far better. 

-- 
Tom McDonald