Response to a Deluded Paedophile.
Within the last week I’ve had two quite opposite comments from readers of this blog. One accused me of being a paedophile and suggested I might burn in hell (deleted) and the other accused me of discriminating against paedophiles. Despite writing about some sensitive subjects such as sexualisation and paedophilia, I have had surprisingly few aggressive comments. Most comments have been polite and on-topic. However in the last few days a character calling himself ‘Maped’ blitzed my in-box with around 9 emails, all saying much the same thing. I’ve decided to publish just the one because it’s a good example of delusional pro-paedophile rationalisation.
Funny how you use the DSM and other tools of the enemy for justifying oppression of sexual minorities, while at the same time criticizing “conservatives”. Make no mistake, someone who thinks that pedophilia (or zoophilia or necrophilia or any other “paraphilia”) is a “disorder”, a “fixation” or whatever the bullshit of the day is, is as socially conservative as those you pretend to criticize.
60 years ago homosexuality was also considered a paraphilia. Nowadays, transexuality is considered a mental disorder in the DSM. So, the source you are quoting is a source who a couple of years ago said that homosexuality was a disorder and that nowadays still says that transexuality is a disorder. Funny.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. A pedophile is “fixated” in children as much as a gay is “fixated” in men. Of course, the word “fixation” is used to demonize and denigrate pedophiles.
Psychology, your canonized DSM are just tools for oppressing sexual minorities and justify power, as my second paragraph proves it.
Pedophilia is not a problem, homosexuality is not a problem, transexuals are not a problem. They are all different variations of human sexuality and there is absolutely nothing wrong or abnormal in any of them. Being a pedophile or gay is as normal as being straight.
PD: I think that someone who blames “moral conservatives” WHILE AT THE SAME TIME using the DSM and psychiatric tools of oppression is the ultimate irony!
The first bit of nonsense to get out of the way is that I rely on the DSM. I don’t. It has it’s problems. I used it to explain the accepted clinical definition of paedophilia as opposed to the popular misconception, particularly the populist inclusion of adolescents as children.
45 Responses to Response to a Deluded Paedophile.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
- The Naked Child in Art: The New Arguments Against 43175 view(s)
- The Lure of Aphrodite’s Mirror: Brooke Shields and Eva Ionesco 20854 view(s)
- The Naked Child in Art: Naturist Photography 10987 view(s)
- Futanari 8225 view(s)
- The Naked Child in Art: Misty Dawn 8008 view(s)
- Eva Ionesco: My Little Princess 6485 view(s)
- The Childhood Culture Wars: Dani Brubaker 6256 view(s)
- Abigail Bray (3): Silencing the Subject 5596 view(s)
- Abigail Bray: Adopting the Paedophiliac Gaze 5382 view(s)
- The Naked Child in Art: Photography 4512 view(s)
Recent Posts
- The Naked Child in Art: Nicolas Poussin
- Eros, Cupid, Putti and Cherubs
- The Naked Child in Art: Polixeni Papapetrou and Olympia Nelson
- Academic Lesley-Anne Ey’s Bogus Study
- The Naked Child in Art: Virginia Mann
- The Problem With ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’
- The Grand Tour
- Birdy
- Madonna, Gaga and Kusama
- The Museum of Erotic Art
Recent Comments
- Ray on Q: A Film by Laurent Bouhnik
- antyq on Q: A Film by Laurent Bouhnik
- Ray on The Erotic as One of the 64 Arts of Saraswati
- Irtsa Thgirw on The Erotic as One of the 64 Arts of Saraswati
- Ray on Academic Lesley-Anne Ey’s Bogus Study
- Tom on Academic Lesley-Anne Ey’s Bogus Study
- Daniel on Two Photos of Paris
- D Dean on TNCA: The Legal Precendents – the OZ Trial
- Ray on TNCA: The Legal Precendents – the OZ Trial
- D Dean on TNCA: The Legal Precendents – the OZ Trial
Abigail Bray About Ray Artemis Articles Bill Henson Child Abuse Child Prodigy Christianity Classical Culture Dark Matter Emma Rush Empty Taboos Eros False Certainties Gail Dines Gifted Kids Guitar Prodigies Hippie Kids Hippies Intersexed Islam Japanese Culture Jock Sturges Melinda Tankard Reist Michael Carr-Gregg Moral Conservatives My Photographs Naked Child In Art Navaratri Porn Psyche Radical Ideas Rock Chicks Sexology Sexualisation Sexualisation Debate Sexuality Stonefield Talented Kids Tantra The Anthropology of Sex The Childhood Culture Wars Transgender Transgression Wild Child
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Bliss is a young hippie girl with an extraordinary, untamed mind: a guitar prodigy, a synesthete, but can she tame her wild talent?
Greenfields Site.
“In my view paedophilia has a number of causes and related mental health issues. Not all paedophiles are the same. Some exhibit symptoms of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and offend when the OCD flares up. Some are the victims of child sexual abuse and offend as part of a PTSD complex. Some suffer from sex addiction and are caught in a shame/offending cycle. Some suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder, and so on. I do not know of any mental health professional or sexologist who accepts that paedophilia is a natural orientation like homosexuality.”
You could say exactly the same about heterosexuals, or heterosexual rapists. Some exhibit symptoms of OCD and offend when the OCD flares up. Some suffer from sex addiction and are caught in a shame/offending cycle. Some suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder, and so on.
Everything you said is applicable to pretty much any group on heart, from heterosexuals to irish people to post-rock fans to artists and scientists. Actually, “Other than the attraction to minors itself, studies fail to find any abnormal or pathological characteristics. ” (http://www.b4uact.org/facts.htm). So your first point is easily refuted.
“I do not know of any mental health professional or sexologist who accepts that paedophilia is a natural orientation like homosexuality.”
You should check http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218786
“In contrast there is no evidence that paedophilia has a genetic basis (although paedophiles may be homo, hetero or bi).”
Again, you could say the same about heterosexuality or homosexuality. Although “genetics” has its role, “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences”. So implying that homosexuality has a “genetic basis”, unlike pedophilia, is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
“The historical and anthropological evidence is complicated by the changing definitions of childhood. Whilst it is certainly true that many societies turned a blind eye to child prostitution and child sexual slavery, or tolerated some form of pederasty, there is no evidence that paedophilia was recognised as a distinct type in the way that homosexuality was. ”
OK, I grant you that, but it has nothing to do with determining if pedophilia is, or not, a sexual orientation.
“Indeed, whilst there were words for homosexuals, transsexuals and different types of prostitution, there seems to be no word for paedophilia; the word paedophilia is thoroughly modern. This suggests that the exclusive attraction to children is a modern problem, one that coincides with the creation of childhood.”
Once again it is you who is deluded. Leaving aside the fact that you called pedophilia a “problem”, the word “Homosexuality” is also a modern invention. I agree that “pedophilia” is a recent invention, but so is homosexuality, at least in the way we understand them.
“And again, whilst there are many quite famous homosexuals in history, there are no famous paedophiles. We know about Alexander the Great’s love for Hephaestion or the emperor Hadrian’s love for Antinous, but there is no record of a famous figure who was openly a paedophile and who was seen in public with his (or her) child lovers.”
Do the names Lewis Carroll and Benjamin Britten mean anything to you?
“But all of this misses the most important point. Paedophiles are notoriously narcissistic. They are incapable of fully understanding the needs of their victims. Everything is interpreted through the rose-coloured glasses of their narcissistic desire. Therefore they imagine that their victims consent and love them in return.”
What victims? Speaking of pedophiles’ victims is like talking of the victims of heterosexuals. Pedophiles are not criminals.
” Paedophiles are notoriously narcissistic. ”
Yeah, and gays are notoriously affeminate, have a good sense of fashion and always like to party and act crazy…
Not to mention that blacks are notoriously predisposed to crime and eating watermellons. Also, everyone knows that jews are notoriously greedy.
Give me a break with your bigotry and absurds generalizations. If you said that “jews are notoriously greedy” everyone would RIGHTLY call you a bigot. But it seems totally OK to make bullshit generalizations about pedophiles…
The next paragraph continues you trend of generalizations and bigotry, talking about “victims of paedophiles” like if pedophiles were criminals. Again, which one was the deluded?
“Paedophilia is narcissistic because it is one way. ”
That is as stupid as saying that heterosexuality is narcissistic because one heterosexual nerd might be attracted to a hot chick who wouldnt even dream of talking to him. Again, generalizations. You think that is impossible for a child to love an adult. It is you who is deluded. It is you who thinks that children cannot feel love towards someone older. Many (not all) pedophiles care deeply about children, they treat them with respect, as equals. And sometimes the child also feels love towards the older person.
“because the peadophile is only attracted to children the paedophile ends the relationship when the child is no longer within the age range they find desirable.”
Damn, AGAIN generalizations! Some pedophiles are not only attracted to children, they are also sexually attracted to adults. You know, there exist something called “bisexuality”. Nothing is black and white. Some pedophiles are attracted to children as well as adults.
As a side note, you are conflating sexual attraction with love. A pedophile might not feel sexual attraction towards an older person, but that doesnt mean he/she doesnt LOVE him/her. Sexual attraction =/= love.
”
Homosexuals and transsexuals can form long-term relationships, as the push for same-sex marriage rights proves, and even though child marriages are a reality in many parts of the world, those children grow to become adults. There can be no such thing as a paedophile/child committed relationship or marriage – it can only last as long as the child stays within the desired age range. This means, that unlike homosexuals and transsexuals, paedophiles can never form mature relationships.”
You should really google “bisexuality” or “pansexuality”. You wouldnt believe it, but some gays are also attracted to women as well! OMG! They are not exclusively attracted to men, they like people from both sexes! UNBELIEVABLE.
“Of course there is the obvious point that children are not developmentally capable of maintaining a mature relationship. Children’s sexuality is ephemeral and inconsistent. It is based on play and curiosity and they can, as with all things, become quickly bored and restless. And whilst they may have crushes on adults, and even fall in love, this too is ephemeral. They are neither emotionally nor cognitively capable of a mature sexual desire and of satisfying a mature adult sexuality. In this sense the paedophile has not yet developed (for whatever reason) a fully mature sexuality.”
Once again, generalizations. Although I do tend to agree with you, you should also know that most child lovers (which is different from pedophile) would never do anything the child doesnt want, and wouldnt force the other person to do anything they didnt want to. Not to mention that many child lovers also have a sexuality at the level of a child.
But it doesnt mean its ‘inmature’, as you think. You think that child sexuality is “inmature” and that adult sexuality is “mature”. I completely disagree and I dont think that one sexuality is better than the other. They are just different.
“What exactly does that involve? Do paedophiles now have the right to openly seduce children? Will children now celebrate their corresponding right to seek sexual relations with adults? Will 9 year-old Sara or Billy decide s/he wants an adult lover and so goes to a pick-up joint to pick up a paedophile for a fling? Perhaps the child will meet a nice paedophile in a park, fall in love and bring him home to meet her/his parents? Perhaps the paedophile is famous and the child is announced as his new lover; perhaps he is an actor or a sports star and the child accompanies him to an awards night and walks the red carpet and everyone coos about how they make such a cute couple? Perhaps the child cheats on him and takes up with another paedophile and the scandal floods the media? Perhaps there will be child/paedophile dating agencies (but then, how many children do you think will voluntarily sign up)?”
I dont think that a society that openly accepts consensual, mutual expression of love and desire between children and adults could be a bad thing. Nothing like that happened in the past, but that doesnt mean its impossible. Have you read the portrayal of child sexuality in “Brave new world”? A society where children are allowed to express their feelings with whoever they want to. Where sex is not a big deal (your words).
“I mean, what adult in their right mind thinks it is at all acceptable for paedophiles to be free to attempt to seduce their children? In what world is it acceptable for children to have to put up with adults constantly soliciting them for sex? Who would tolerate any form of child sexual exploitation? Indeed, who would leave their child in the care of a paedophile knowing they will seek to seduce their child?”
I completely oppose sexual exploitation. The key here is that is the kid who wants to express her/his feelings with someone older.
“And really, what paedophile ever actually takes no as an answer and wouldn’t resort to some form of trickery or manipulation to get what they want?”
The same kind of person that, if he was heterosexual, would rape a woman?
“I have stated in several places that my own sexual ethics are based on care, consent and mutual pleasure. If anyone of these conditions is absent then the sexual relationship is unethical. ”
I agree.
“In my opinion paedophiles, because of their narcissism, cannot genuinely care for a child. ”
Oh god your bigotry literally hurts my eyes. So much stupidity. So much ignorance. Please hide your stupidity and bigotry, dont make it so obvious. Sexual orientation does not relate to not being able to “genuinely care for a child”.
“Nor can the child consent because it cannot fully understand what the adult is asking of them (many victims of child abuse say they agreed to an act without ever actually understanding what they were doing – this is not consent). ”
I think the problem is that the child was forced to do something. If is the child who wants to go to the movies, play a sport, or have an orgasm, whats the problem?
“It is also unlikely that the child will ever really enjoy the sexual relationship. ”
Is like “Generalizations: the essay. Longer and uncut”
“Paedophiles often have to bribe the child so they will put up with the sexual act.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
“In comparison homosexual and transsexual relationships can fulfill all three ethical requirements.”
Given that all your “arguments” against pedophilia are fallacious, I dont see why pedophilia shouldnt fill them too.
“One of the symptoms of paedophilia is delusional thinking. It is not a normal orientation. It is a pathology and they need help. Above all they need to be kept away from children.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype
and dont forget the omnipresent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
I literally refuted each of your paragraphs. And its funny that a person who makes such stupid and faulty generalizations about a vast and heterogeneous group of people, call pedophiles “deluded”. Your generalizations are akin to those that antisemits, racists and homophobes do.
I publish this response so that my readers can follow your deluded thinking. My readers are intelligent and will be able to readily isolate your fallacious reasoning.
“Although I do tend to agree with you, you should also know that most child lovers (which is different from pedophile) would never do anything the child doesnt want, and wouldnt force the other person to do anything they didnt want to.”
This lies at the heart of your delusion. It suggests that there are a number of successful child/adult relationships that the child never reveals because they love the adult and the adult never forces the child to do anything it doesn’t want to. I notice that you didn’t comment on the section where I cite the first-hand accounts of the victims of paedophiles, all of which speak of some form of coercion. This coercion can be very subtle. As I said, I do not know of any case where an adult has confessed to having had a sexual relationship as a child with an adult that they enjoyed and which they sought, especially for the sex. However, many do report that they were sexually abused by an adult who they believed loved them and who was very kind to them and bought them gifts. I recall reading an account of child prostitution in Thailand where the children said the paedophiles were generally kind and generous and who helped their families financially. However, they also made it quite clear that they didn’t like the sexual side, that it often hurt, but they put up with it because the paedophiles were nice to them. It is also clear that if the children refused sex, the money would dry up and the paedophiles would move on to a more compliant child. I am yet to read any account where a child maintained a relationship with an adult because they enjoyed and wanted the sex. I am not interested in YOUR word on this. I am only interested in the child’s word. A good example is my post on Sarah Beach http://novelactivist.com/1097/wild-child-sarah-beach/ She became sexually active at the age of 8 and refuses to be called a victim. But what is her advice as an adult? “Don’t have sex with children. Just don’t.”
You say: “The key here is that is the kid who wants to express her/his feelings with someone older.”
I agree and my novel Wild Child is about just such a child. But she is a rarity and the novel explains why. But again we need to return to reality. What are the chances that such a child will find a willing paedophile to fall in love with? The reality is that paedophiles must always seek out children and encourage them to fall in love. This involves intent and manipulation. Again, I do not know of a case in which a child has approached an adult with the intent of forming a sexual relationship or who, once in a ‘friendship’ with an adult, is the one who initiates having sex. The reality is that children do fall in love with adults, but those adults are likely to be non-paedophile adults who can not and will not delude themselves that a relationship is possible. And whilst it also true that children often push the sexual boundaries out of curiosity, as many parents will attest, there is a line that cannot be crossed. A mature adult will respond to childhood sexual and emotional experimentation with good humour and self-control and with respect to the child’s developmental needs.
Paedophiles will be unable to exert self-control and will take the child into sexual and emotional territory it is not yet ready for.
“Not to mention that many child lovers also have a sexuality at the level of a child. ”
Well, you said it, not me.
“This lies at the heart of your delusion. It suggests that there are a number of successful child/adult relationships that the child… etcetera”
First of all, you seem to assume that there is a central “delusion” of mine, which somehow impedes me from making any rational argument about any topic, and that “contaminates” in some ways my other opinions and make them deluded too. Your paragraph adresses adult-child relationships, but you fail to mention anything about the gross generalizations you made and your own delusions which I mentioned and you didnt answer. It is a reductionist and certainly fallacious argument to say that my, presumibly false opinion on a subject, renders me unable to make rational and true arguments about other topics, like your own generalizations and prejudices against pedophiles.
It is even more false to say that just because you think my opinion is “deluded” regarding one topic, one opinion (child-adult sex), I am “deluded” in “everything”, “always”, or that is central to my person and my ideas. It is a very Hollywood and mass-culture thing: explain an entire individual by one trait. Even worse if that trait is imagined.
But, answering your point I do agree that coercion can be very sublte. And I never denied that there are certainly many cases where there is abuse. I fear that my actual position in the topic seemed far more extremist that it actually is. I agree that in this contemporary society “dont have sex with children” is a damn well advice. But my point was that I dont think that a society which permited free, mutual pleasurable experiences between children and adults would necesarily be worse than this. And that I am certainly sure that many pedophiles (not all of course) dont want to force the child AT ALL. That they deeply care for the other person and who would never initiate a contact, but rather participate in whatever the child wants. That was my point and I dont think your paragraph refutes it. Also, I agree that many children “made it quite clear that they didn’t like the sexual side”. But, my argument concerned those who actually did want to experience some kind of erotic experience.
And I am also interested in the child’s word. I do think its extremely important to listen to them, always. A true child lover ALWAYS listen to children and never instantly thinks that what they say is “stupid” or “childlish”.
“Well, you said it, not me.”
Yes, but what you said was that it was “inmature”, and thus, “worse” than “mature”. I said that I dont think that child sexuality is “inmature” and thus less complete, worse, more imperfect. I think that is just DIFFERENT, not worse or better.
“But again we need to return to reality. What are the chances that such a child will find a willing paedophile to fall in love with?”
If it doesnt happen, doesnt happen. Not necessarily a bad or good thing. I am interested in the situation where those kids ALREADY found a person. Where it happened spontaneously, naturally, coercion-free. And it happens, sometimes. It might be rare, but that is besides the point. The point is that it exists and your generalizations dont take it into account.
“And whilst it also true that children often push the sexual boundaries out of curiosity, as many parents will attest, there is a line that cannot be crossed. A mature adult will respond to childhood sexual and emotional experimentation with good humour and self-control and with respect to the child’s developmental needs.”
Once again you utilize the word “mature” as a synonym of “good, normal”. In your discourse, child sexuality and experimentation is “immature” and an adult who would like to engage in it is “arrested development” and has a “pathology”, a “sickness”, is “abnormal”.
You equate adult sexuality with normal sexuality and child sexuality with “immature”, “abnormal” sexuality. I am trying to make you see the assumptions you make, and the moral, sexual ideology behind your discourse.
Of course, I disagree with your assumptions and your ideology. I dont think that adult sexuality is the standard and child sexuality is something incomplete, immature, worse.
“Paedophiles will be unable to exert self-control and will take the child into sexual and emotional territory it is not yet ready for.”
And yet again you generalize… Dont you seem anything wrong about your stereotypes? If it was directed against blacks or muslims it would rightly be called BIGOTRY. You over generalize, you think of “pedophiles” as stereotypes, not as extremely complex, heterogenous, and REAL persons.
You are not talking about persons, you are talking about stereotypes, social constructions, cultural mirages. When you mention “pedophiles” you are talking about that, not about actual, REAL, complex and unique persons who are extremely different and only have one point in common: their attraction.
I am not suggesting that you are deluded about ‘everything’. I am saying you are deluded about child/adult sexual relations, namely the child’s capacity to desire and enjoy sex with an adult. You have still not provided one example where an adult has confessed to consciously seeking and having a sexual relationship with an adult as a child, saying that it was a totally positive experience and recommending it to other children. The central delusion is in believing that children are capable of informed consent.
I do understand that paedophiles differ and that some choose to be celibate. But there is a reason many paedophiles end up in jail. It’s because the children involved make a complaint and the evidence points to some level of coercion. You really need to spend more time reading victim statements. I do not support the hysteria around paedophilia. I think it can be managed and a good way is for the perpetrator to face the victim and really hear their side.
I have a background in developmental psychology and like it or not, there is a developmental spectrum on which mature is always better than immature. Higher intelligence is better than lower intelligence; higher emotional intelligence is better than lower; and mature sexuality is better than immature – it is incomplete. As it is I think many Westerners are stuck at a juvenile level of sexual understanding anyway. I have often mentioned Tantra as an example of a mature sexual understanding that can lead to very profound sexual experiences. A child is simply incapable of reaching that level and so Tantra forbids it (unless it is part of sex education).
Another good example is that of the Trobriand Islands. Children were given the freedom to explore their sexuality. There were no prohibitions. However they tended to naturally stay within peer groups. When asked if such freedom lead to adult’s exploiting the children, the adults were mystified. They couldn’t understand why an adult would be interested in children. This suggests that left to a natural development children’s sexuality matures into adult sexuality.
Your position seems to have shifted. In my original article I carefully defined paedophilia as the exclusive attraction to children. This also means an inability to maintain adult relationships. I have said elsewhere that most child sexual abuse is committed by non-paedophile adults who lack impulse control and who misunderstand the boundaries (which actually vary from culture to culture). It is ‘abuse’ because it ignores the child’s integrity and is for the selfish pleasure/compulsion of the adult.
“Where it happened spontaneously, naturally, coercion-free. And it happens, sometimes. It might be rare, but that is besides the point. The point is that it exists and your generalizations dont take it into account.”
The fact that it is rare is precisely the point. I happen to agree that love between children and adults can occur and that children can fall deeply in love. I have actually written about childhood crushes. In such cases the child might wish to explore greater intimacy. But again, it is exceedingly rare and usually only found amongst gifted kids whor are developmentally mature anyway. But such relationships are fraught with immense difficulties and it would take a very mature and sefless adult to manage it. It has to be handled with great sensitivity. The child’s feelings must be taken seriously and acknowledged. They most certainly should not be exploited. In any case such relationships are almost impossible in most cultures, if only because of the social stigma if it were ever uncovered. A selfless adult would never expose a child to such infamy.
The last person I would trust is a paedophile. Their own desire would cloud their judgment.
I wont continue arguing as long as you seem unable to recognize your delusions, generalizations and stereotyping discourse about pedophiles. I have continuously addressed your points, but you seem unwilling to recognize that when you say “pedophiles” you are not talking about human beings, but cultural mirages and social constructions. Some of your phrases:
“Paedophiles will be unable to exert self-control”
“Paedophiles are notoriously narcissistic”
“They are incapable of fully understanding the needs of their victims”
“what paedophile ever actually takes no as an answer”
“Paedophiles cannot genuinely care for a child.”
“Their own desire would cloud their judgment.”
This prove beyond doubt your bigotry, ignorance and delusions towards pedophiles. That you are not addressing reality, you are not talking about real persons. Instead, you are discussing your own personal and stereotypical image of a “Pedophiles”, which is made from stereotypes, myths and generalizations.
Unless you agree to discuss reality and REAL HUMAN BEINGS in all their complexity instead of stereotypes, it is YOU who is the deluded one.
And yet again you refuse to acknowledge the voice of the victims. It’s all about the poor, misunderstood paedophile. This will be the last comment I’ll allow.
While I don’t agree with everything maped says, I think he does have a lot of valid points. As much as I agree with most of your reasoning, I think you are guilty of poisoning the well here, Ray. Someone very close to me was a victim of a pedophilic molester. He is quite adamant about the fact that, while he did not initiate the sexual contact, he was a willing party and enjoyed it. He also understands that the real source of his issues relating to this was society’s bullshit, not the contact itself.
That being said, I am not a fan of dropping the age of consent laws whole cloth, which is what pedophiles seem to advocate, but I am a fan of the system proposed by Robert Epstein, which would allow kids who were able to test out of age of minority status to be in relationships or whatever else they wanted to do.
I think the bottom line here is that no one can really say definitively how such relationships would play out in a culture that wasn’t poisoned by the massive taboo surrounding this. There are far too many assumptions on both sides, and almost every study that’s been done is hugely biased and generally not very good science. Also, memories are not fixed things. I suspect a lot of kids who had engaged in non-coercive sexual contact with adults grow up feeling harmed because those experiences are filtered through the cultural schema in order for the child to avoid feeling guilt or cognitive dissonance. It’s unlikely that this will ever go away entirely, so I feel that pedophiles/child lovers/whatever have an uphill battle there. But I don’t think they’re as deluded as society makes them out to be; I think that’s a convenient narrative that allows society to dismiss their views without really having to test them in a taboo-free environment, which would be an ethical nightmare.
Suffice it to say, I have a hard time believing that human beings could evolve to this point over millions of years and yet the evolutionary process would somehow render children psychologically vulnerable to something as innate to us as sex. It just doesn’t ring true. Children are highly adaptive and resilient. It is quite obvious to me that, barring sexual contact which is forced or painful, the bulk of the harm rests in society’s hands, and we owe it to children to take a look at that. Wherever harm originates, it should be counteracted through reasonable measures.
Pip,
The evidence that children can enjoy sex is clear across a number of disciplines. That isn’t in dispute and it isn’t the point of contention. The point of contention is whether or not paedophilia is a natural sexual orientation; and whether or not paedophiles have a right to sex with children.
I have a great deal of respect for the work of David Finklehor and I’ve mentioned him several times in my blog. He has had over 30 years of experience in the field of child abuse and has made a number of important theoretical breakthroughs. One was his Traumogenics Model where he said that sexual abuse creates four distinct sources of trauma. The first and most obvious is traumatic (or precocious) sexualisation. The second is disempowerment. The third is betrayal. The fourth is stigmatisation. Current research suggests that precocious sexualisation is the least traumatic and in some cases, not traumatic at all. The most traumatic is stigmatisation, which necessarily involves shame. Other research, and again I’ve discussed this on my blog, points to just how nasty shame can be. Stigmatisation and shame is the leading cause of suicide amongst gender or sexual orientation variant children and adolescents. Shame and guilt generate considerable stress and long-term stress creates various forms of PTSD. You say that the real source of your friends issues was society’s bullshit. I accept this. Social attitudes can greatly increase stigmatisation, including self-stigmatisation.
However, we have the society that we do and any adult who has sex with a child, even if that child enjoys it, exposes that child to stigmatisation. Susan Clancy devotes a section to shame in ‘The Trauma Myth’ and quotes a number of victims:
“I think the heart of the damage is shame. It eats away at me. It has eroded my sense of self-esteem and my confidence, my ability to love and feel loved. The abuse stopped when I was twelve; the shame remained my whole life.”
Even victims who said they enjoyed the sex, later felt shame.
Adults have a duty of care to children. They should never knowingly place them in harm’s way. They should never expose a child to long-term harm for short-term pleasure for either them or the child. We don’t let children eat ice-cream as a main meal even though they enjoy it because we understand the long-term effects (or should). Not to mention the fact that child/adult sexual contact is illegal and if discovered will lead to the child being embroiled in traumatic legal proceedings and the consequent stigmatisation.
Of course society should change but until it does any adult who has sex with a child places them in considerable danger, even if the child enjoys it at the time.
Frankly I’m not interested in the rationalisations of paedophiles. I’m a firm believer in children’s rights, including their sexual rights. The only voices I’m interested in are theirs and I would encourage anyone who has had a positive experience to speak up to break the stereotype. But just as a child has the right to sexual pleasure they also have a right to be protected from predatory adults, even in Utopian sex-positive societies.
I understand your point about shame and I agree with it. The point I was making is that I am quite certain that this sexual shame is not inherent to children or adults but is generated by the culture in which they live. If that turns out to be case, then society needs to rethink its stigmatization of pedophilia, not for the benefit of pedophiles but for the benefit of children, because adults getting involved sexually with kids, whether coerced or not, is not going to end. This, of course, does not mean that the laws are invalid, as I said earlier. There is an important difference between laws and mores, and I agree with you that the laws need to be there to protect children from genuine abuse. But I also think the laws as they currently stand, particularly with regards to how and to what degree sex offenders are punished, far exceeds what is rational and is a one-size-fits-all that treats all sex offenders the same way.
Moreover, I believe that very stigma creates a draw for many abusers, as all stigmas ultimately do. And thus, the excitement of violating the taboo combined with the way society reacts to this issue creates an underground culture that does pose a serious threat to children, because pedophiles who may want help are afraid to seek it out or to even admit they have this attraction. Combine that with the hopelessness and persecution they face and you have the makings of someone who might very well act out because they see no reason not to. It’s hard for me not to feel sympathy for those in that position.
In terms of pedophilia being a sexual orientation . . . yeah, I think it very well could be. I gather this perspective from my reading of Kenneth Lanning’s “Child Molesters” (Lanning was the top child sexual abuse guy in the FBI for awhile) which takes great pains to distinguish between situational molesters and real pedophiles. The media routinely fails to distinguish between the two, but there is a real distinction. Most sexual abuse is committed by situational offenders, generally someone related to the child or living in the child’s home. Situational offenders molest for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with attraction. Pedophiles, however, are in fact attracted to children, but not all of them act on that attraction. I imagine there are actually a fairly significant number of non-offending pedophiles out there, but they do not currently identify themselves in this environment, and therein lies the problem with studies that determine that pedophiles are “notoriously narcissistic” or have no self-control. All of these studies are necessarily done on those who actually offended, which means you’re likely to find those traits.
Ergo, not all child molesters are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molesters. Confused yet? This is an incredibly complex issue and I do believe society needs to open a dialogue with pedophiles; it does no one any good to oppress them and push them further underground. It certainly doesn’t help children. Adults do indeed have a duty to care for children and not cause them harm, which is precisely what I think the stigma does. I think in the end children would be much safer in an environment where pedophiles were not persecuted but could come out and seek help if they need it, or even if they don’t, they can still openly self-identify without being insulted, harassed or attacked, which would benefit everyone, if you follow me here.
I remain unconvinced that paedophilia is a natural variation. The evidence from anthropology suggests that it is not. It seems to be a function of some form of sexual repression and a frustrated sexual development. The evidence from sex positive societies is that adults are not interested in children and any sexual interaction is either ritual, educational or incidental and playful. For it to be natural we would have to find some genetic/hormonal cause, as with gender and sexual orientation. I do not know of any research that points us in this direction. If it is natural then it is likely to be natural like sociopathy and psychopathy is natural.
I agree that not all paedophiles are molesters, etc. I’m not confused about this at all, and yes, most abuse is situational. Nonetheless the problem remains that paedophiles desire children and will therefore seek relationships, which makes them predatory by nature.
I would ad that I do not think paedophiles should be persecuted. You are right that driving them underground is dangerous. However, the issue of how you manage paedophiles is different to validating their sexuality. I do not believe in the harsh punishment regime popular in many countries. I believe in compassion. That compassion means compassion for the victims of paedophiles.
The question I have is, what is “natural” with regard to human sexuality? I think we run the risk here of naturalistic fallacy (or some variant of it) when we assume that anything without a genetic cause is unnatural and therefore outside of the domain of “legit” or recognized sexualities. I mean, it hasn’t even been demonstrated yet that homosexuality is genetically caused, much less that all homosexuality has a genetic basis.
I suspect that all sexualities–including the default hetero-teleiophilic one–have a variety of causes, some of them genetic, or at least congenital (see: the possible congenital connection between pedophilia and left-handedness, for example), and some environmental. It is a convenient myth to oversimplify the concept of sexual orientation, but in reality I am dead certain there are gays, straights, etc. who are formed by their environment and by genes, or sometimes both in conjunction, or through congenital deviations (with the proviso, of course, that heterosexuality is likely a genetic default as it is highly normative and the only sexual orientation that can culminate in offspring.)
On the flip side, it seems to me that the term ‘sexual orientation’ is as much or more of a political term than a scientific one, and that is the problem here. I think pedophiles have a legitimate claim to the term inasmuch as they are genuinely oriented towards children. I do not think, however, that this can be considered equivalent to heterosexuality and homosexuality in every respect. The central difference here is that homosexuals and heterosexuals are oriented towards one another, whereas the subject of pedophiles’ attraction/love do not share their orientation, or sexuality, or whatever you wish to call it.
I would not classify pedophilia as a fetish as some (like Roger Scruton) do. Near as I can tell, most pedophiles do not view children as mere objects for their sexual pleasure but as genuine human beings. That to me suggests sexual orientation. At least one writer I have read (David Brin) has suggested that pedophilia in some cases may be a mutation of the genes that predispose us to neotenous traits, which would make it genetic in those cases. As I said earlier, the issues here are complex.
The bottom line is that we really don’t know enough about sexual orientation OR pedophilia, largely due to the current politicization of and moral panic surrounding these issues. At the very least I think we should assume that by puberty pedophiles have a more or less hardwired sexuality. It strikes me as wholly unlikely that most pedophiles would choose to be sexually interested in children, given the degree of persecution and hatred they face. There are those people turned on by the prospect of violating the taboo, but these would most likely be situational offenders, not pedophiles.
Okay, so ‘natural’ might be a clumsy word, universal is probably more accurate.
I don’t consider paedophiles to be all of the same type and therefore the causes are likely to differ. Some paedophiles do exhibit fetishistic behaviour. I have quoted one in my blog who said he was specifically aroused by children in their underpants. There are paedophiles aroused by children’s feet, or by children of a very specific type. Such specificity would argue against Brin’s argument.
The point remains that there is sufficient evidence that most paedophiles are prepared to use various levels of coercion and deception to get what they want, that they target specific children and plan to get close to the child. This is predatory behaviour. There is also sufficient evidence that this type of predation is unwanted by children, and in fact children tend to have a good radar for ‘creeps’. I am aware of a couple of occasions in which children have alerted trusted adults to the presence of a ‘creep’, someone hovering inappropriately or staring too much.
I agree it is highly politicised and that this prevents us from understanding and treating paedophilia, and from understanding child sexuality. I think we could all do with being more honest about human sexual response, including our own sexual feelings as a child.
However, I return to the point that clinical paedophilia also involves an inability to develop adult relationships. Good adult relationships change as we get older (even homosexual relationships). Our sexuality changes as we age. Adolescent sexuality differs from young adult sexuality, adult sexuality differs from geriatric sexuality. The paedophile is stuck – fixated. They miss out on the benefits of a mature sexuality.
Eh, I still think you’re basing your assessment on highly biased studies. The vast majority of these studies are on criminal populations, which inherently biases them towards detecting the kind of people you’re describing. There are, I believe, many pedophiles who never offend, and maybe others who get involved in relationships with children where the child grows up fine and doesn’t see any reason to report the adult. We just cannot know in the current environment.
I’m also not convinced that all or most pedophiles are any more “fixated” as you put it (although Lanning uses that descriptor, though with a slightly different meaning) than most people. First, yes, they are focused on a particular age range, but aren’t most people? For example, are you attracted to females from birth to old age? Obviously not. Moreover, I don’t believe men who claim young women aren’t the most attractive to them. Granted, this can be moot if a man loves someone and is involved in a long-term relationship with a woman, but generally speaking, we are most attracted to young women. We’re genetically programmed to, in fact (refer again to the article on neoteny.)
Secondly, as maped pointed out, exclusive pedophiles are probably a rarity. Most of them I’ll wager are attracted to adults as well, and even those who aren’t could likely adjust to the aging of their partner just as most people do. The reason why it seems otherwise is that circumstances are such that non-related children and adults are almost always going to be pulled/kept apart. In a different environment, where kids had more power, this wouldn’t necessarily be the case.
Also, I really disagree with the ‘kids are inherently aware of creepy adults’ thing. Maybe a few of them are, but in my experience kids love attention from whomever and wherever they can get it. Moreover, kids are no more intuitive than adults are; I think this is something we like to tell ourselves but it doesn’t really hold up in my experience. Indeed, does that not run counter to the argument that children are inherently mentally and emotionally vulnerable to sexual predators? It is the fact that kids are generally less aware of predatory behaviors (whether sexual, commercial or otherwise) that makes them vulnerable enough to warrant special protections under the law, in my estimation.
At any rate, I’m going to leave off here and give you the last word, as it is your website. Take care!
What other studies are there? I’m just not aware of reports of happy kids and their peadophile partners. It’s illegal, so as soon as it’s discovered it’s reported and it’s criminalised. Are kids that good at keeping secrets? Are parents that lax in vigilance? Also remember that some are reported after the relationship ends. So how many get away with it really?
I think you are also getting confused between clinical paedophilia and the popular concept of paedophilia. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, not adolescents. Sexual attraction to adolescents is normative across a number of societies and historical periods.
The only comprehensive study that includes the accounts of children who have had positive sexual encounters with adults is the 1998 APA Meta-analysis. When you combine that with Susan Clancy’s work you get a dismal figure of around 10% of people reporting a positive encounter. There were a few more ‘didn’t mind, but regretted it’ and degrees of negative responses all the way to profoundly traumatic. Which means that around 90% of respondents reported some form of negative consequence. Of course not all these incidents were with paedophiles, many were no doubt situational. Still, 10% is a pretty poor number and enough to say to any adult that as much as you may fool yourself it’s okay, it’s very likely the child will come to either regret it, or suffer some negative consequence.
It is also understood that paedophiles seek out vulnerable kids. There is no mystery in this. They want kids who will say yes.
Also, I would like to a say a word to maped and other pedophiles who write in to forums or articles, as I’ve encountered a few:
If you are going to try to make your case (and I agree there is a case to be made, at least insofar as you are the persecuted minority du jour), it would do you well to remember first that you are a guest there and secondly that you are on a short leash as far as society is concerned. Try to temper your arrogant view that you know what’s better for kids than parents do. And try to empathize with parents or with adults who have been abused. Try to understand why they feel the way they do about people who want to have sex with their small children. I’ll grant that their reaction is not always rational, but much of parenting is instinctive anyway. You’re up against a strongly genetic predisposition to protect one’s offspring, and you are almost certainly going to lose that battle. So don’t go in there with both of fists swinging. Be respectful, and don’t overextend your argument. Address one or two points at a time.
Two of the most strident anti-paedophile campaigners in Australia have been the victims of child sexual abuse. They have zero tolerance because of their personal experiences. They are motivated by anger and a need for revenge. Not the best of motives but nonetheless understandable.
You make an honest attempt here to rationally discuss paedophilia, but unfortunately you just rehash the common myths and descend into hate speech.
I was thinking, God, yet another rebuttal required, and so I was very pleased to see that b4u-act (whose work I’m aware of) and others have already responded. Also, I’m very pleased to see you have acknowledged these responses. Thankyou.
As you might have guessed, I’m a ‘minor attracted adult’ or ‘paedophile’ or whatever you want to call us. I don’t speak for a group, just myself. Personally, I don’t think sexual conduct with children is an ethical or reasonable response to the feelings I have, but I also don’t think I deserve the demonizing and contempt my orientation inspires whenever it is discussed.
Child sexual abuse disgusts me. I know it’s common enough, and I can think of few things more miserable for a child, especially when it occurs in the home, amongst the people who should be providing safety and protection. Sexual feelings for children are not as unusual as the prevailing mythology suggests, and a person does not need to be a paedophile to have them. Conversely, nobody has carte blanche in their choice of sexual partner, whoever they find attractive.
Altho I’m part of a minority that feels greater sexual attraction to children than to adults, I have other feelings as well. Perhaps they are more ‘noble’ feelings, it depends on your attitude to sexuality in general, but much of the culture you are defending in these pages is libertarian and implicitly paedophilic. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is the essence of freedom to have and communicate emotions. Moral absolutism and it’s enforcer, sexual fascism, each dictate the aggressive alienation (‘othering’) of those aspects of the common human condition deemed unacceptable, and so the ‘paedophile’ (and before him, the ‘homosexual’) is created. An ‘incitement to discourse’ as Foucault put it.
But I just like kids and enjoy their friendship. I admire their physical beauty and to be honest, I always enjoy seeing them nude, whether in real life or in art works like those created by Jock Sturges or Sally Mann.
On a handful of occasions I’ve fallen in love with a child, but I’ve never allowed my feelings to intrude on her existence. I’ve always observed boundaries and respected the values of my wider community. I don’t get hung up on what’s ‘harmful’ and what isn’t, I just focus on trying to be a good person in the conventional sense. That means (among other things) not lying and deceiving people about how I act with their kids when they’re not around.
It would be inadequate for me to say I take offence at the assumption that my orientation comes with a raft of social and psychological pathologies: narcissism, OCD and whatever else you mentioned, or that I am tired of being taken for a criminal if I reveal any hint of my nature, or that I feel sickened by the decades of guilt and shame and embarrassment I’ve learned to internalize as a response to the prevailing public opinion.
All that is true, but at this stage, I would be happy for a few thoughtful people such as yourself to consider for a moment how you would feel if you’d been born in my situation, and write your blog according to that.
Many thanks.
There’s no hate speech. And B4U-ACT has not responded, just someone called ‘Maped’. I understand very well that there are minor attracted people who do not offend against children. However the problem is those who do. I wonder if people like yourself are can truly be said to be paedophiles if you haven’t actually acted on your attraction.
I noticed your statement above: “mature is always better than immature”.
Apart from it’s teleological implications, this reveals a sensibility that is diametrically opposite to that of a paedophile, so it’s not surprising you don’t understand how we feel.
The maturing mammalian brain gains efficiency but loses plasticity, and increasingly responds to novel stimuli with fear and aggression rather than curiosity. There’s nothing ‘better’ about an adult’s brain over a child’s.
As I said, I feel more sexual/romantic attraction to little girls than I do to women (or men). That makes me a paedophile. I think you are just wanting to deny that a ‘true’ paedophile could live without molesting kids.
I agree with a lot of maped’s comments. I don’t agree that some sexual experiences are intrinsically harmful. I think all harm is related to context and social reaction. I express my feelings as I see fit. It might surprise you, but I think it likely that the vast majority of paedophiles are just like me.
I fell in love with a six year old girl when I was eleven. I still fall in love with little girls. I know a lot about the subject, unlike you.
From Sylvia Townsend Warner’s biography of the novelist T.H. White:
“There is nothing better about an adult’s brain over a child’s.” I suggest you study developmental psychology.
I suggest you study philosophy.
I have and do. I’m into hermeneutics and Integral philosophy (Process philosophy is cool too).
I had intended to answer your reply at a bit more length. Indeed, the brain looses plasticity, but only well into adult age.
I’ve written about developmental psychology on my blog. The work of Piaget, Commons, Kohlberg and Graves point to the simple fact that children face a number of cognitive and affective limitations that inhibit their judgment and ability to consent, or, depending on their age, to understand the full implications of sexual interactions with adults.
You are right that I do not understand how you feel. I cannot really understand how anyone feels. But understanding how you feel is not the issue. The issue is what causes paedophilia. It may very well be that there is some genetic basis which is out of the paedophile’s control. However, I am yet to see any evidence that this is the case and as I said to Maped there seems to be little recognition of paedophilia (as the exclusive attraction to children) being recognised in other cultures. This leads me to think it is not like homosexuality or transgender issues.
Piaget, Commons, Kohlberg and Graves
Developmentalist stage theory (ontogeny recapitulating value) is certainly a splendid opportunity to reminesce over the glories of the Empire and the White Man’s Burden, but is also a Highly Misleading paradigm for interpreting quantified data. If you want to support a qualitative analysis, you must define the cultural context.
Ah, cultural relativism. Modern developmental psychology is well aware of cultural context. Developmental theory is valid in every cultural context.
The issue is what causes paedophilia
Is it?
…if you’re ‘into’ hermeneutics you’ll understand how medieval Christian scholarship inverts Aristotelian final causes to suggest intention in place of function. Presumably you’re also believing that paedophilia is ‘worse’ than homosexuality because it not only refutes nature, it corrupts it.
For the record, I’m suspicious of arguments along the lines of: “increased myelination of the white matter of the central sulcus indicates legal incompetence to consent to sex”. If we’re going to communicate in that vein, can we just skip it and say kids know less than adults about sex?
But I don’t want to traverse that territory. It isn’t interesting to me. I’d like to discuss the hyperventilating hyperbolic hypocrisy of a world where being felt up is worse than murder, but being beaten, imprisoned in a robotic school system and fed to death on fat and sugar is a ‘normal’ childhood.
Now you’re being silly.
How silly?
ps: Sorry, I apologise. That sounded snide. To tell the truth I’d prefer to have a respectful exchange of ideas than a pissing contest.
I suggest we both outline what it is we want to convey.
You said “The issue is what causes paedophilia”. I’m interested in why you think that’s important. Do you mean that freedom to choose is a prerequisite for moral responsibility?
Personally, I think the concept of paedophilia is overdetermined. In terms of potential harms like child sexual abuse, innate attraction to children is less important than the socially conditioned modes of its expression. But there is no room for a fragmentation of meanings of paedophilia in the dominant, hegemonic discourse. It is a cultural icon and must be recognizable, like the CocaCola logo.
But sexuality is fluid and most people have a capacity to respond sexually to the same sex and to children, given conducive conditions. What inhibits their responses is the emotional armour of homophobia and ‘paedophobia’ respectively. Few men consider in detail whether sucking their best friend’s cock is ethical, they simply do it or don’t do it, depending on their beliefs about homosexuality. It’s exactly the same with paedophilia. Not responding to erotic impulses triggered by horse play with a child is simply a reflection of folk beliefs about sex. It has nothing to do with the ‘naturalness’ of the impulses, or the ethical calculus of the alternatives.
In your defence of Jock Sturges (and read his afterword to “Last Day of Summer”) you are defending a celebration of overt paedophilia, where adult pleasure in the nude bodies of children, unblemished skin warm from the sun, provides a cathexis which takes a universal experience of paedophilic emotion and restores it to consciousness.
Unfortunately, unconscious inhibition can transform ‘jouissance’ into a rigid performance of robot like perversions. Without Sturges’ art, surplus emotion is left to energize neurotic frustration and the narcissistic and compulsive paedophilia you write about in your blog.
Actually, my original post intended to point out that the term paedophilia is misunderstood in popular culture. It is a narrow term used to describe a rare exclusive attraction to children. I acknowledge that most child abuse in committed by non-paedophile adults. Sexuality is fluid and the anthropological and historical evidence supports the fluid theory.
I dispute that Sturges’s work is overt paedophilia. Here you manipulate the meaning of paedophilia.
The central issue is can a child want an adult lover? I posed the question to Maped. Suppose paedophilia is accepted, what then? Dating agencies where children can find a nice paedophile for a fling? This debate is usually one-sided with paedophiles making the argument. There is a reason why you don’t see children making a passionate defence of paedophilia (oe teleophilia).
You’re right, the semantic furze obscuring the central term “paedophilia” is a large part of the problem here!
I disagree with your narrow definition: “rare exclusive attraction”. Even in the DSM there is no requirement for exclusivity. Significant arousal to prebubescent stimuli is far from rare [see individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/Allo_summary.pdf for very interesting recent data on this]. From memory, paedophilia is defined as ‘intense and persistent’ sexual interest in children, but I’m more comfortable with the idea that sexual interest in children is consistently gretare than in adults. ‘Intensity’ is somewhat arbitrary, and provides nothing to measure against.
But is any of this the ‘meaning’ of paedophilia. Is attraction to same sex partners the ‘meaning’ of homosexuality? There are phenomenological questions that define sexuality in ways that are fundamental to the subject but opaque to objective measurement, and I think it is important to at least attempt to deal with these.
Consequently, although I admit it is provocative to claim Sturges’ work is overtly paedophilic, I believe he is speaking to the same phenomenon as Blanchards research. Erotic response is integral to the popularity of the artistic nude, and why shouldn’t it be? It is instructive to us to learn about ourselves, as Freud pointed out.
You may be thrown by my qualification ‘overt’. I don’t mean ‘explicit’, I mean out in the open. Covert paedophilia is, I’m hypothesizing, the problematic kind, that is expressed secretly in locked bedrooms by men driven in ways they don’t understand. To me, overt celebration of the beauty and erotic appeal of children is a protective factor, not a risk factor, as it is commonly portrayed in victimological orthodoxy. Cascades of putti tumbling out of the ceilings of rennaiscence churches are a celebration of child love that once performed a psychological function we no longer understand.
Kraft-Ebing first described it as exclusive, the DSM has modified it to ‘intense and persistent’.
In regard to Sturges and to the nude in art in general. There are different types of erotic. One might appreciate a nude without getting uncontrollably aroused such that one needs to find immediate release. Aesthetic appreciation actually involves different parts of the brain.
I agree that we need a more open discussion and understanding of child sexuality, adult/child sexual contact and paedophilia. Which is why I’m publishing this discussion.
“One might appreciate a nude without getting uncontrollably aroused such that one needs to find immediate release.”
This’ll be my last comment for a day or two, but hey…
The stereotype that every paedophile is a walking erection looking for ‘release’ is frankly idiotic and barely warrants a response. It’s also deeply offensive to me personally.
How about an alternative view: that most paedophiles manage to live with severe constraints on any sexual expression of their most powerful erotic impulses. Even masturbation, even speech for God’s sake, is deemed suspect.
To me, they often seem more saint than satyr.
Depends on the paedophile. The paedophiles who can exercise restraint are not the problem.
The central issue is can a child want an adult lover?
As I recall, maped responded that paedophiles commonly have sexual interests that are more like those of children, where play and curiosity are the motivators, rather than genital engagement and orgasm. I would like to present some supporting data here, but I’m sorry I simply don’t have time. Nevertheless, it is a truism that paedophiles engage in mutual fondling and inspection far more often than in anything resembling coitus.
Also, most paedophiles genuinely like children and often have surprisingly close bonds with child friends. This is sometimes referred to as “emotional congruence” and is cast in a negative light as an aspect of ‘grooming’ in child protection literature, but that is an ideological perspective.
In truth, children like to be loved and cared for by adults. Their appealing characteristics, cute features and winning ways, are adaptive, ensuring they are cared for. Children don’t care that grannie is wrinkly and old, because they like to be cuddled and fed with sponge pudding. Like it or not, paedophiles occupy this same space.
The sexual aspect is focused around juvenile spontaneity, curiosity and hedonism. It isn’t a marriage contract, its sex play.
That is not how all paedophiles respond as the various prosecutions detail. I don’t know how anyone can say ‘most’ paedophiles when it is still such a taboo subject.
The fact that it is sex ‘play’ and not a fully mature, multi-layered and changing sexual relationship indicates to me that it is problematic. It suggests that the particular individual is stuck at an immature level of sexual development.
That is not how all paedophiles respond as the various prosecutions detail.
Court proceedings rarely consider whether people accused of child molestation are paedophilic or ‘situational’ offenders. If that question is ever addressed it is typically post sentencing. Also, data showing that true paedophiles typically engage in the kind of behaviour I mentioned does exist and is relatively uncontroversial. I’m sorry, I simply don’t have time right now to research it, but I’ll try and post something next week.
I don’t know how anyone can say ‘most’ paedophiles when it is still such a taboo subject.
Well, the dominant child protection discourse seems to have no problem drawing its own conclusions about paedophilia by studying inmates, and the public clearly has no problem drawing conclusions about paedophilia from salacious media reports and cop shows, so I feel justified in drawing some modest conclusions from decades of personal communication with self defined (and mostly non-offending) paedophiles, professional sexologists and sex therapists and a host of other interested and qualified individuals who, unlike you, have the benefit of direct engagement with the population.
The fact that it is sex ‘play’ and not a fully mature, multi-layered and changing sexual relationship indicates to me that it is problematic. It suggests that the particular individual is stuck at an immature level of sexual development.
Paedophilia does reflect an immature level of sexual development. Why that is so problematic is not so clear. Are all adult sexual relationships models of maturity? Actually, sexual aggression and dominance are universal features of mature mammalian male sexual behaviour. Are those the kind of thing you’d prefer to see in a relationship?
In my essay ‘Integral Sexology’ I outline a developmental approach to sexuality and suggest that some Eastern approaches, like Tantra, indicate what is possible.
I accept that there is a body of sexological research using self-identified, non-offending paedophiles. I’m all for publishing and discussing the results.
One of the motivations behind demonising paedophiles is the ordinary adult fear of their own sexual attraction to children.
“what then? Dating agencies where children can find a nice paedophile for a fling?”
This particular reductio ad absurdum is based on the false premise that relationships between adults and children are the same as relationships between adults. If that were true, most of the arguments against sex with children would fall away.
Rhetorical devices rarely contribute to understanding, and appealing to the ridiculous usually winds up somewhere ridiculous.
Exactly. There is an inherent absurdity to paedophilia.
“There is an inherent absurdity to paedophilia.”
Well, I will wear that. How that compares to the inherent absurdity of the rest of human life is the next question.
Also, did you ever expereince something that felt so perfectly true to your nature that for a breif moment, life didn’t seem like an absurd comedy?
I have. I’ve felt that way at sea and climbing mountains. Also, significantly, I’ve felt just as real sitting under a tree doing a puzzle with a little girl friend.
You claimed earlier that you hadn’t engaged in hate speech, but I think this comment of yours is a kind of hate speech, because it is denying the validity of my humanity. It is really the worst kind of hate speech.
I’m not denying your humanity and I object to your assertion that I am.
“One of the motivations behind demonising paedophiles is the ordinary adult fear of their own sexual attraction to children.”
Precisely.
Comments now closed