By Patricia Lee Sharpe
Love children? Definitely, as in the verb meaning to cherish and care for them. But love children referring to the consequences of the love ‘em and leave ‘em approach to copulation? Isn’t it an absurd misnomer? Shouldn’t we toss it overboard? Procreation doesn’t require love. All it takes is an adequate sperm count, a functional delivery system and a vessel, willing or not.
These thoughts came to me as I continued to encoounter snippets of gossip about the not so private life of Julian Asange of Wikileaks fame. First the rape charges. Now the news that he has four “love children” scattered around the world.
Obviously, I think that rape is a form of assault that deserves a place in the criminal code, and that rapists should suffer the consequences, but I do wonder about the timing of the prosecutions in Sweden. And I am equally put off by the titillating revelations about Asange’s sex life anywhere. We have long since learned that achievers of all kinds, including pious Congressmen and paragon golfers, have feet of clay and zipless jeans when it comes to women. And some of the women are willing.
To the extent that it’s not criminal, I don’t care about the personal life of Julian Asange. I don’t care if he’s an egomaniac. I don’t care if he’s a bad boss. If he were a conventional nice guy, he wouldn’t be in the rather useful business he’s in.
Meanwhile, his massive leaks have raised some very important questions about the uses and misuses of secrecy. So far, the harm seems less than catastrophic. But gadflies are extremely inconvenient, and generally they are squashed by any means available. If you can’t get him for treason, ruin his reputation and/or nail him on a “lesser” charge.
Children born “out of wedlock” used to be called bastards or by-blows. The latter is an all-too-accurate description of what comes of irresponsible sex, whether it stems from rage, impulse, foolish infatuation or whatever. The former was a legal term: a child with no legal right to a patrimony. It was also a poisonous label for a child. Getting rid of it was a good idea, and the switch to “love child” was equivalent to Gandhi’s deciding that untouchables should be called Harijans or Children of God. Noble idea. But it didn’t really work. And no modern kid on the playground wants to be known as a “love child. Outing Asange’s children, may damage his reputation with some people, but it does more harm to the children, of any age, who have nothing to do with his politics.
So, please. Children are children. All children deserve love and parents who, married or not, cherish them. Those who aren’t so lucky can do without the coy labeling.