To be angry at Colleen McCullough's obituary

[drudgetrudy]

"Plain of feature and certainly overweight"-for a respected novelist and neuroscientist-Grrr!

But she had a point... may not be palatable here, on Pitcairn, as in every other country in the entire world, as soon as girls become fertile they become sexually available.

All she said was that it is not right that more 'civilised' countries plaster their own mores on any/every other society they find that has not had the same opportunities or preferences for what we would call growth: social, financial, moral, etc.

No she didn't have a point Nomama. First and foremost Pitcairn falls under British law- which is how and why they were eventually convicted.

And secondly, just because a small isolated community of power-mad inbreds had convinced itself it was fine to take children into bushes and rape them any time they fancied a shag, it does not mean at all that the wider international community should be sanctioning their behaviour. In much the same way that we don't sanction the murder of rape victims for "adultery" or the mutilation of baby girls' genitals with broken glass.

Whatever you say, SaucyJack.

You are perfectly allowed to miss the main point in my post in order to retain the moral high ground.

Just as you are perfectly well allowed to raise other actions, not previously mentioned or alluded to in order to raise the temperature of moral indignation.

Just as I am perfectly well allowed to ignore it!

If she actually said something morally reprehensible then it would be fine to mention that.
Its nothing to do with her being "plain of feature and certainly overweight" though.
Anyone can be either a prat or a genius whatever they look like-which was the point of the original post.

I was referring to the 'take a comment about age of consent and raise you FGM' style posting.

Did you actually read about the case Nomama? We're talking about grown married men in positions of power thinking it was OK to walk past children playing out and take them into the nearest bush to rape them. It's instituted child sex abuse, and no more to do with the "age of consent" than Jimmy Saville.

I did... and remember that there were all sorts of accusations flying in all directions - including women being offered money to make accusations and being threatened if they tried to object. Underage sex was denied, as the islanders did not consider 12/13 to be underage.

Pitcairn is a very odd place, from its beginnings onwards. My point was that the case was seen by many on the island as outside interference, conspiracy theories abounded - and no, not just the men and no, I would not assume that every woman on the island was subjected to behaviours that made them submissive and incapable of making decisions/having opinions of their own - that would be crass, overly simplistic and, again, insisting that my 'more civilised' viewpoint must take precedence.

I am not saying there was no abuse on Pitcairn, I am just saying that such cases are often not quite what they seem to be... we really should not judge the actions of different societies by our own mores, or feel so superior whilst doing so!