General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is "rape culture" responsible for child rape, incest and pedophilia? [View all]Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I tend to think that the accusation of "rape culture" is an over-simplification that generates more heat than light and is used more an an accusatory label than as something to actually be resolved. This is actually the first thread related to the subject in a while that I haven't trashed.
Now, that said, our culture (I consider the US and UK to share a culture to a large degree) does a lousy job of protecting children of protecting children from abuse and exploitation while also having an almost hysterical attitude about paedophilia (especially in the UK). A comedian (I forget who) once described The Sun's attitude as "are you a paedo? Are you a paedo? Bang on her tits, sixteen today! Are you a paedo?". Or think, for example, of the Satanic Panics of the Eighties and early Nineties. So while our cultures are almost obsessed with child abuse and the sexualisation of children, that obsession is largely focused in the wrong areas because everyone is looking for a simple solution, be it "rape culture" or Satanist cults or whatever, rather than expending the time, money and effort required to deal with the complexity of the real causes. And when the rapists/abusers are actually caught and charged, they frequently evade punishment for various reasons although that's an issue with the legal system more than anything else.
With regard to the DuPont heir: I think this is more an example of one set of laws for the rich and one for the poor than anything else. Now, without knowing much about the case, it may be that the guy was a beneficiary of an awful judge (and both our nations need a better, quicker way of getting idiots off the bench), it may be that he was the beneficiary for the unwarranted leeway our culture gives to the rich (I'm much more convinced of the reality of the class war) or maybe his personal circle minimizes the exploitation of children, I don't know. Likewise, without talking to him, I can't know if he's a preferential offender (who will almost certainly offend again) or a situational offender (who might not).