pedophiles

[miriam_e]

I don't listen to the radio news or watch TV or read newspapers (other than New Scientist) so I hadn't heard about it when Margaret told me today that a big pedophilia ring had been broken, with lots of people going to jail.

Over the years it has surprised me to find out how many of my friends have had their lives damaged by being molested when they were kids. I grew up in blissful ignorance of such things. It always puzzled me that some people can be sexually attracted to children. How can that be? They don't produce any of the sexual cues that puberty brings. Margaret insists that it is about power. She was molested when young and is terrified of, and furious at pedophiles. She may be right. I can't even begin to understand what must be going on in the mind of a pedophile.

But there are a number of things about the current approach to pedophilia that ring very loud alarm bells. It has become a witchhunt. All that is needed to destroy someone's life is to name them as a pedophile -- evidence is not really required. This is a very dangerous situation.

Margaret said the people were obviously guilty because child porn was found on their computers, but I pointed out that is relatively easy to put files on almost anybody's computer if they are running Microsoft Windows. Finding such pictures on people's computers is circumstantial evidence at best. Also, looking at pictures doesn't mean those people actually go out and interfere with children. Do we throw people in jail for thinking about crimes now? Have George Orwell's thought police finally arrived?

There is also the problem of what to do with pedophiles. "Take them of the street. Lock them away from the kids," Margaret said. Although mopping up afterwards will always be fairly ineffective, it should still be done. Taking offenders off the street keeps them away from their prey. It is a short term help, but it doesn't solve the problem. It closes the gate after the horse has bolted. Wouldn't it be better to prevent it? Is it fixable? Many people have considered being gay to be an illness, but now we know better -- homosexuality has always been one of the various shades of normal. That makes me ask the very discomforting question, is it possible that pedophilia is part of the normal range of sexuality? It has certainly been around for a long time. I think the Koran says Muhammed's youngest wife was 12, and there is no way 12 can be viewed as anything but a child. I don't care what excuses are made for earlier times; anyone pre-puberty is a child. If it is part of the normal sexual spectrum, what can, or should, be done about it? If it is part of normal then it will likely be impossible to "cure". Inded I've read of pedophiles who have tried to be cured only to find the desires simply remain.

But many of my friends remain extremely upset about their experiences. It has had a very bad effect on their lives. By their descriptions I feel quite strongly that no child should have to live through such traumas. So something needs to be done whether is is a part of "normal" or not. Even if if it can't be cured perhaps we should be finding ways to prevent it happening. How do we do that? One of the temptations will always be to remove contact with adults. Unfortunately adults are not the only problem. I know of people who were sexually assaulted by older siblings. Isolation would never work anyway. It would simply impoverish a child's world and paradoxically make pedophilia easier by removing potential witnesses.

I can't help feeling that the children themselves are the solution somehow. I don't mean using a child's accusations as evidence -- some years back a teacher in North Queensland had his entire life destroyed by such an accusation, only to have the girl admit many years later that she'd simply made it up.

We need to find a way to prevent pedophilia without limiting kids themselves or victimising innocent people. Most of all we need to do this without a witchhunt. Witchhunts are extremely dangerous. They run out of control far too easily. I feel uncomfortable raising these concerns because I'm sure that in some people's eyes it will make me suspect. My stories and artwork clearly show I'm only attracted to sexually mature women, so it is not a great worry to me, but how difficult must it be for others to speak out in such a climate? The fear of such suspicions is part of the great danger any witchhunt poses. In engineering it is called a positive feedback loop and can be very destructive, wrecking things that have nothing to do with the original problem.

Comments

towards solutions

[(Anonymous)]

Education and assertiveness training for children would help. A very firm "NO!"

Education for perpetrators about what is unacceptable - and what the consequences will be.

As well as a culture where reporting incidents is considered normal, and child-friendly systems are in place for reporting - a "Molestation Hotline."

MFG

Re: towards solutions

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Education for kids: yes. Knowledge will always be power. I don't know how effective assertiveness training could ever be when the pedophile uses force, as in the case of one of my friends who was repeatedly raped and tortured by her step father, but in other, less forceful cases it could indeed help.

Education for perpetrators: I doubt this would have any effect at all. From what I've read it seems, in many cases, to be an impulse-control issue, and consequences are useless in that situation. I think probably pedophiles understand what they're doing is wrong... though to be honest I have no real evidence for that.

A culture where reporting incidents is considered normal: a qualified yes. Our culture needs to grow up and become a lot less fear-based. I worry that the current witchhunt may have indirectly contributed to the death of kids. A while ago a kid was abducted from the Sunshine Coast and was never found. I wonder how many kids are killed by their horrid abductors because they can't countenance the risk of being identified.

Years ago I read a story (by H.G. Wells?) in which a civilisation of the future had no crime because as soon as a person did something wrong or even considered doing wrong they presented themselves to the doctors for repair of what was felt to be a simple illness. The problem, of course, is that we don't know how to repair such things yet. Unfortunately our current society is not going to even consider repair when revenge is instead our overarching concern.

Re: towards solutions

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

Perhaps they understand it on some level, but that doesn't mean that some of them don't try to convince themselves that it is consensual. Giving more education so that there is less room for denial, means that there is at least the potential to avoid some instances of abuse. I do not think it is a solution that will change things dramatically, but it might help a tiny bit.

Isn't psychology trying to help people repair themselves? I don't know how much innovation or new thinking is going into treating people's criminal tendencies though...

[greylock.livejournal.com]

Margaret said the people were obviously guilty because child porn was found on their computers, but I pointed out that is relatively easy to put files on almost anybody's computer if they are running Microsoft Windows. Finding such pictures on people's computers is circumstantial evidence at best.

This is true, but in the latest bust (and in most recent ones) the people were active in uploading kiddie pron and downloading it from a website in Europe. I believe SBS mentioned things like Zero Hour chatrooms and the like. In terms of forensic computing it all sounds very interesting, but the cops weren't too forthcoming with their exact methods.

Also, looking at pictures doesn't mean those people actually go out and interfere with children.

No, but there's a better than average chance that they might. They also create a market for it.

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

Indeed. If it the child porn was created with real children, than there was harm even in just looking because it perpetuates the original behaviour of whoever made the videos or took the pictures.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yes. I must admit I overlooked this point in my original post. Stupid of me to do so. If people didn't buy child porn there would be no market for the creeps who exploit children in the making of it.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

People who go on child porn chatrooms would have to be idiots, in my view. I don't think it is a crime yet to be an idiot.

Creating a market for child porn is another, more important point. By sponsoring such crimes to be commissioned (and can't imagine any situation where making child porn could not be a crime) then a person is contributing to the crime and must assume some responsibility for it.

I don't know what chance there would be that the viewers of child porn might go out and interfere with children. I doubt any studies have been done on the subject. I haven't read of any.

[greylock.livejournal.com]

I don't know what chance there would be that the viewers of child porn might go out and interfere with children. I doubt any studies have been done on the subject. I haven't read of any.

I think in the first batch of 90 arrested they identified 16 children "in danger", whatever that might mean, so it could be two in ten. But I have no idea if that included the teacher who pasted his own face (and those of his pupils) onto kiddie porn.

I don't know what chance there would be that the viewers of child porn might go out and interfere with children.

There's also the problem that kiddie porn might be a symptom rather than a cause. If a father is abusing his daughter I wonder if it's the case that he's more likely to download kiddie porn than get into it and then start abusing.

[superchikka.livejournal.com]

About the child porn pictures - I indeed think it is bad, as the pictures come from the exploitation of children. If there were not market for themm, not as many chi;dren would be molested for cameras. It is condoning the assault of children even if teh voyeurs are not physically doing anything to the victims.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yes. I stupidly ignored this point in my original post. It is like trafficking in endangered wildlife. Just because someone didn't catch the animal they should still be prosecuted because they enable a reprehensible industry.

[seedy-girl.livejournal.com]

A very thoughtful post, as yours always are Miriam.

However, I'm intrigued that you see looking at pornographic photographs of children (ignoring the forensic issues of how they got onto the machine in the first place) as not actually being carrying out a crime. Surely by viewing those pictures, the person becomes complicit in the crime committed against those children who have been photographed (and hence the "victim")? It may not be carrying out "the act" physically, but that doesn't mean it's not a crime, nor is it simply a "thought crime".

I think the line becomes more blurry where we are talking about drawings, paintings or digitally-generated "art" that could be considered child porn. Then we get into discussions of "victimless" crime and whether this equates to "thought crime".

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I suggest that the whole thing about simply viewing is grey. What if, say, you are seeing pictures taken 50 years ago and the individual is no longer living? Victimless, harmless ... but considered criminal.

What if you download some supposedly adult porn and later find it contains children? You're not contributing to the industry, because you didn't even want it. You don't know the children involved, so it doesn't affect them directly. You delete it because it's not even something you wanted ... but you're a criminal.

The real criminals are the ones that produce the material and distribute it. Also, in a practical sense, it's much more sensible to devote resources to that, just the same way that attempting to prosecute everyone who has a single pirate DVD at home is much less effective than going for the sellers.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I agree that going after the makers should be the primary effort, but the buyers of child porn do enable the industry. (A point I missed in my original post.)

The whole porn issue is a web of problems because our puritanical society puts things that are clearly not wrong in the same category as things that are truly evil. We often attack things for the wrong reasons and wreak vengeance on people instead of attempting to help them be repaired.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yep. You are right, of course. I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't think of the larger issue, concentrating on the immediate situation instead. Buying child porn must be a crime because without that there would be no child porn industry in which children are abused and exploited. Users of child porn are morally complicit in supporting such crimes. They are accomplices.

Horrible and a hard problem

[revbobbob.livejournal.com]

Back when I was a YMCA director I had some kids in some of our programs who had been molested, according to their parents, and some of them showed serious problems. I remember one little girl who was acting seductively to the little boys, but we told her gently but firmly that's not right. The best we could do was treat her like what she was: a little girl, and have her participate with other kids in normal YMCA activities. My staff and I were totally unqualified to do this, so we didn't, but I was sure someone needed to show her the difference between innocent affection and sexuality. What her parents expected from us and what we did was to treat her like a regular kid. We weren't all touchy-feely in the first place, but it would have been horrible to treat her like a leper. The thing we tried to keep in mind was that *she* was a good kid, and what *happened* to her was horrible.

That behavior wasn't universal. I know some other kids who had been molested who seemed to be perfectly normal. But I know a woman in her 40s who was molested by her father who still has panic attacks that are triggered by, for instance, the smell of wet canvas, which she associates with one molestation in a tent that she remembers vividly.

Yes I know everyone, male or female, who has a job working with kids is automatically suspect these days, but we need *somebody* to be teachers and Girl Scout leaders. And we need to keep molesters (who are very often family members) from harming kids.

screening? Read Cronbach and Meehl's classic paper. it won't work.

There's a wonderful mnemonic they teach kids in the US (yes, we occasionally do something right): "Yell, tell, no, go".

As with so many things, we need most of all to get smart about this.

Re: Horrible and a hard problem

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

That must be hard knowing what happened to those children... I'm glad that someone was there to try to show them normal interaction and treat them with respect.

Re: Horrible and a hard problem

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Giving kids a safety net of capable, empathetic, and helpful people is probably the best way to help heal some of the damage from predators. Sadly, I know from the stories related to me by my friends that nothing truly repairs it. I have one friend who still has panic attacks many decades on.

You are so right that we need to get smart about this problem. It is so difficult to work out how to manage it. Rage and revenge don't work, and I worry that they may have indirectly contributed to child deaths. The climate of hate and fear also makes it far too easy to destroy opponents (like the opposition leader in, was it Burma? who was crushed by simply saying he was gay in a feverishly homophobic society).

I get tired just thinking about the problem. I almost regret bringing it up because it is so depressing and it almost makes me want to bite my tongue when I say we should tread carefully and not overreact about these vile people who cause so much damage. [sigh]

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

I would point out that some twelve year olds are fertile and developing sexual characteristics. It is completely disgusting to me despite this, that anyone would do anything about attractions they have for someone under the age of say 16 if they are 18-25, and 18 if they are 25+... Acts between children younger than 16 should be considered more on the comparative ages of the children and whether or not there was any physical or emotional force being used to manipulate one party, rather than saying outright it shouldn't be happening. People under the age of about 16-20 depending on the person are much more likely to react negatively to a sexual experience even if they THINK they want it when something starts, than someone more mature. Therefor, even consensual sexual relations could be emotionally scarring. Grown people should know this and not act on any feelings they have for someone too young, anything else is irresponsible and possibly criminal. Myself, I started thinking by the age of about 22 that anyone under the age of 19 was too emotionally immature for me and it made me uncomfortable sometimes when I was attracted to say an 18 year old. But, then, I've at least instinctually known that such limits and differences in maturity were in existence and important by the age of about 15... and I didn't have a strong desire to even start dating until about 17...

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

I will add that being fertile and being even physically capable of producing a healthy child and staying healthy while doing so are NOT the same thing and I know this.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

some twelve year olds are fertile and developing sexual characteristics

That is a very interesting point. I know that some young kids these days are developing sexual characteristics very early, but I think that is largely due to the way we've been saturating our environment with estrogen-mimics and even actual sex hormone. I read in New Scientist that a number of hair shampoos had estrogen in them to make hair softer and that this was causing many girls to develop breasts and begin periods far too early. Many plastics are estrogen-mimics. Lavender scent is an estrogen-mimic as was found when it turned out that young boys exposed to it began to grow breasts. A number of the pesticides are estrogen-mimics and are causing havoc in wild animal populations.

I don't think people in olden times developed sexual characteristics as early as we tend to now. Darn. I read an article in Scientific American ("Earlier Maturation in Man" January 1968) on this very topic when I was a kid (yes I was always a nerd). I can't recall clearly, but I'm pretty sure they found that we have been maturing earlier for as long as records have been reliably recording such stuff. I will look through my issues and find it.

In my personal opinion there can be no excuse for being sexually active with someone who is sexually immature -- there may be reasons, but not excuses. The damage it causes to the child makes it a bad thing that can never be excused. There may be reasons why the person has become bent out of mental shape so that they ignore the damage and do it anyway.

We need to find out the reasons so that we can prevent the inexcusable behaviour. The real trick is how to do that efficiently and effectively.

Your point about relative ages is a good one, but I don't know how to make any good generalisations.

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

I don't know how to make the relative ages much more specific either... usually more than about 2 years difference is excessive for people under 16, in my opinion...

I know that added hormones/hormone mimics are a problem, but in fact I think it is as much our lifestyles as our eating habits in developed countries, especially for girls. Girls don't usually get their period until they reach 90lbs or so (and I think a certain body fat ratio) because they need to be large enough to carry a baby to term. Therefor, the change from kids not getting enough food or getting enough food to kids getting enough food to too much food that has occurred in first world countries is also a factor. Also, we are more sedentary which means a higher body fat ratio which also contributes to this. For example, I had lots of milk as a kid, but I was a active and small for my age until about 12 or 13 when I started to catch up. This means that even though I'm sure that I was exposed to more hormones, I did not have my period until I was nearly 15 because of my weight and body fat ratio.

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

*our lifestyles and our eating habits...

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

This is a really good observation, and one I hadn't thought of myself. The Scientific American article noted that we have been getting taller and heavier over the same time as we been reaching puberty earlier, though I can't remember if they made that particular connection in the text... I'll have to read it again.

In my own family we all tend to be quite skinny and we tend to have a later onset of puberty than other people.

What you mention also correlates well with the observation that catwalk models, many athletes, and people who are starving stop getting their periods until they put on some fat again.

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

I can't take all the credit. I saw a special on the subject on, I think, 60 Minutes a couple years ago. I can't recall if they talked about body fat ratio, although it would make sense seeing as how a baby needs food and fat is more readily converted to energy then other tissues... Also, a decent fat ratio generally means enough food to support the growth of a child and I know that this is a biological trigger for mating and/or successfully getting pregnant in a lot of species, so why not ours? I do know they talked about overweight kids and hormones and earlier sexual development.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yep. I found it. "Earlier Maturation in Man" by J.M. Turner, Scientific American, January 1968. The article collated information on age of first period for girls, and height and weight for ages 5 to 21 of both sexes, for several countries over the time 1840 to 1960.

At 1860 the first year of period averaged out to be about 16 and a half years old. By 1960 this had dropped linearly to around 13 years old.

I'd be interested to find out what has happened since then. I find it difficult to believe that modern children begin puberty at 11 years old. Saddening if true.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... looks like I was wrong about Mohammed's youngest wife Aisha being 12 when he married her. It seems she was 9.

Mohammed was a real charmer. Aisha's father begged Mohammed to delay having sex with her for a while because she was so young, so he married Sauda bint Zamah as well, who "he mistreated because she was not pretty".

According to http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha_age.htm
"Muhammad married Safiya after murdering her father, torturing to death her husband and massacring her entire tribe. He married Juwariyah after raiding her people, massacring the men and robbing their wealth and taking the women and children as slaves. He took Rayhana, the 15 year old Jewish girl of Bani Quraiza after massacring all the men and boys who had reached puberty of her tribe and took all the women and children as slaves."
(I need to verify this, but am too depressed at all this stuff to do it right now)

Are you ready to be creeped out?

[revbobbob.livejournal.com]

http://tinyurl.com/64fzva

This guy says "intergenerational eros" (attraction but not molestation) is common in both men and women and may account for the stories, common in the 1980s, of "Satanic ritual abuse.

I did participate in Methodist Ritual Abuse, which, as you may expect, was seriously boring.

I must have missed my "intergenerational eros" phase of devlopment. But I've seen children who were attracted to adults. They invariably, in my experience, have no way to act on it, and it resolves itself by the kids becoming interested in something else. Being followed by a pack of little girls making googoo eyes is mildly annoying at worst (and some of my female staff had their own entourages of puppydog admirers), but par for the course for adults who work with kids, and the kids easily find something more interesting. When they get older and get interested in kids their own age, I sometimes wished I could turn the hose on them, but as long as someone's around who'll act responsibly and keep an eye on them, it mostly works out OK. OMG! I forgot Leah my babysitter. I was going to marry her.

And, as the Official Guy here, I'm horrified just by the mention in the article of something called a "phallometer". I don't want to know about that, but I know it's going to hurt and DO NOT WANT.

Anyhow, the article explains something, but may replace it with something just as disturbing.

Re: Are you ready to be creeped out?

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Wow. :/

Serious stuff. Thanks for the link, Bob.

When I said above that perhaps pedophilia is a part of normal I was actually trying to be careful. I didn't really feel that it was. It simply seemed to me that we should not give in to hysteria as enthusiastically as we tend to, but consider all the possibilities more carefully. What a surprise to find such a wealth of evidence supporting the idea that it is quite normal, but that our horror at it is the great danger and causes terrific damage to children and adults. Apparently cross-generational attraction, even to the point of explicit sex, in many cultures brought about no damage to the children or adults involved. It would certainly seem that our moral panic about pedophilia is hurting everybody and clouding our judgement. (I noticed that even I unwittingly gave in to it above when I referred to "these vile people who cause so much damage". Oops.)

So how do we turn this scary, ponderous ship around?

I have to rethink this for a while.

Re: Are you ready to be creeped out?

[revbobbob.livejournal.com]

I'm seriously conflicted. I feel and believe adult-child sex is horrible, but part of growing is realizing that facts trump beliefs. I once believed gay men might be a danger to kids, but I knew that was crap. How can an child make an informed decision? How can a relationship -- any relationship between any people -- not turn into something exploitative? Well, "Lolita" and "Pretty Baby " illustrate that anybody can exploit anybody. Adults are twice the size of children and some men are twice the size of some women. Are gay relationships miraculously free of exploitation and bullying? Not some of the people I know. And on the other hand I really do know people, adults and children, who I'm pretty sure have been damaged by molestation. On the other other hand, parents of a species do have a strong instinct to protect their young. On the other other other hand, we all grow into sexual beings, starting with childhood.

Oh yeah, *that* really cleared things up.

Re: Are you ready to be creeped out?

[revbobbob.livejournal.com]

Sorry, 2nd line, s/knew/learned/

Re: Are you ready to be creeped out?

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we come back to "power corrupts".
I find the conclusions unpalatable too, but if we are damaging people wholesale then we should stop.

It must be said that the people who are unable to resist their urges and sexually interfere with children while knowing that the present sick society will seriously, perhaps permanently, damage them are as culpable as society itself. This also puts a different complexion on those who have the compulsions but don't act on them -- I am surprised to find myself now seeing them as something of heroes. They resist a strong instinct so as not to do harm others.

Anyway, I'm going to give myself a little rest from this exhausting topic.

I must thank you Bob -- the link you posted gave me a new story idea. I now know what NaNoWriMo will bring this year. :) Moral Panic -- now there is a seriously creepy topic. Bummer in a way, I had hoped to get some comedies written this year. Oh well... :/