|
Well the illegal thing is sexual misconduct (in this case, any sexual conduct at all). Many will argue that the highest human pursuit is love, and humans are polyamorous, they are capable of loving anything. Pedophilia, simply a love for children, should not be considered a surprising phenomenon. Children (yes, i know many would disagree, and when you're stuck on a flight with one, you'll definitely disagree) are fantasic creatures, a often unnoticed oddity in the human phenomenon, unspoiled by experiences, not old enough for the many neuroses of the average adult to have formed. I could easily see myself being enchanted by children.
In this sense, we have no right to condemn someone for following their own spiritual calling. It seems the children loved Michael, too, and not just because he bribed them to be around. Now I'm not arguing that he's not weak, pathetic, lonely, fucked up, sad, and needy. He may well be all those things. And that's why the mixture of a genuine love of children with a weak or warped sense of self, and perhaps unresolved sexual issues (i'm bullshitting together a psychology here but i think it's not invalid) is dangerous because self satisfaction through children gets confused with any occaisional sexual impulses he gets.
I personally think it's likely that in moments of closeness with children, he has touched them inapropriately and irresponsibly. I believe the state has the right and the duty to protect and act responsibly on behalf of children. If the court had convicted him (had there been more solid evidence) I would not think it an ethnocentric outrage where he was being persecuted for loving children. Rather the court would be acting on a deeply valid social norm, that children should not be exploited as objects of pleasure.
However, in the case of the children being subjects of amazement, it's not impossible that you would want to sleep with them and they would be just fine with it. And violating this social norm is just too bad for those who hold it.
|