|
In Reply to: Re: Wilful Blindness [reposted] posted by Perry on November 04, 2005 at 13:32:23:
If you read through the Uncircumcision ML that exer has referenced, you can see two things going on. It's like those reversible pictures in a psychology book--is it a lovely young lady or a haggy old woman? Is it a vase or two profiles?
TF defended the Uncircumcision ML by calling it child care instructions. At a certain level, it could certainly be perceived that way; it is, after all, about genital hygiene in uncircumcised children. However, if you read a practical nursing text on such hygiene, you'll see that this ML goes way, way over the line into sexualizing the child. This sort of activity between a child and a Family nanny probably was NOT openly referred to as "sharing" by everyone in all homes.
Reading through this ML, I immediately got a visual of the opening scene in "Coming to America" where the royal prince (Eddie Murphy) is standing in a bathtub having the royal penis attended to by a pair of attractive servant girls. That certainly was Berg's fantasy and the "dream come true" that Sara Davidito played out with Rick for Berg's vicarious pleasure.
I also find JoJo's incredulity about the sexualization of young children--particularly little boys--in TF Homes a little hard to understand. There are a number of stories at MO where young men relate how a nanny or auntie or even their mother sexualized them at age 4, 5 and 6. No doubt, much of this took place under the guise of "hygiene," and that could be why she didn't see it happening.
