 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Quote: |
Jon Henley had a piece in yesterday’s Guardian, entitled “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light”. He’s received a furious response on social media and I can see why. Many involved child protection will find it hard to see it as anything other than the commentariat’s backlash, a contrarian response to a public outcry over recent revelations about child abuse by the rich and famous.
That may be harsh, and I felt a considered response was important. These thoughts are my own, but I have lent heavily on the work and advice of Dr Liz Davies, a leading academic in the field of child protection.
In a brief Twitter exchange, Jon pointed me to the final two paragraphs of his article. Quoting senior lecturer Sarah Goode he writes, “If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.”
The sub-heading for the article claimed: “The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia – and even how much harm it causes”
My main argument against this article is that this approach ignores the evidence of the experiences of abused children, the experiences of adult survivors of child abuse and the experiences of many professionals who work to protect children. It is a risky strategy at the current time because so many of those who promoted the rights of the ‘paedophile’ have in later years been convicted of sexual crimes against children. Equally, so many of those whom this lobby attacked have been vindicated in their efforts to protect and gain justice for children and survivors.
For Jon, the current public discourse is hindered because of moral panic around child abuse. Saying “If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today’s panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World’s notorious “name and shame” campaign in 2000, which brought mobs to the streets, to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst.”
Defining moral panic this way with respect to the sexual abuse of children is shows a failure to understand the term. Stanley Cohen, author of “Folk Devils and Moral Panics” defines moral panic as “when a condition, episode, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. Those who start the panic fear a threat to prevailing societal values”. Opposing the sexual abuse of children and upholding their human rights doesn’t fit this definition. Prevailing societal values are not under threat by those who challenge child sexual abuse because this society clearly legislates and upholds the rights of children to be protected from harm and all forms of abuse. The concept of a ‘moral panic’ is an academic argument being exploited to attack those who are striving to protect children from harm. They would never say that those who oppose racism are part of a moral panic so why apply it to those who oppose childism (to borrow an “ism” from the experts)?
The part of the article that concerns me most is where it touches on the experiences of the liberation campaigns of the1970′s saying: “The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”
The Paedophile Liberation Front and Paeodphile Information Exchange emerged also in the 70s. It is wrong though to suggest that everyone around at that time agreed with the extension of the ‘rights’ movement into including a child’s right to ‘sex’ with adults. This was definitely not the case. These groups were always on the very margins of the freedom and civil rights movements. Some of this pro-paedophile lobby, though, infiltrated academia and professional circles including the children’s charter and rights movement. Brian Taylor’s book “Perspectives on Paedophilia” (1981), the most depressing on my Christmas reading list, is one of the main examples of professionals who promoted this view. Some of the contributors were subsequently convicted for sexual crimes against children as was Tom O’Carroll, author of the “Radical Case for Paedophilia” (1980). Peter Righton, in Taylor’s book, wrote about boys expressing appreciation for the consideration and attention they received which they rarely got in their own homes and most felt they benefited. He was convicted in 1992 of importing and possessing abusive images of boys.
These claims, bogus of course, are perhaps why people were so angry at Jon Henley’s comment piece. The very fact that a respected features writer on The Guardian lent his authority to a number of pseudo-intellectual claims like these is deeply upsetting to many who campaign to expose child abuse.
Here are further examples of how leading writers of the time were captured by the language of liberation:
Cambridge criminology Professor, Donald West, author of “Children’s sexual encounters with adults. A scientific study” wrote about paedophiles ‘coming out’ in the late 70s, which aroused a “witch hunt” against paedophiles:
“there is an urgent need to distinguish between those adults who use force to obtain sexual contact with children and those who do not, as well as between children who just endure what is done to them and those who actively participate in sexual relationships with adults’.
“This study is concerned with adult sexual experiences with children.. its central aim is to give voice to the viewpoint of the paedophile”.
He criticises the prevalence statistics stating that they mainly include “relatively innocuous advances”. He also states that it is “unwise to overdramatise institutional abuse” as many boys “did not take the behaviour at all seriously or felt the need to make a formal complaint.”
Ralph Underwager was a high profile US consultant psychologist to the Cleveland Inquiry. He was exposed as contributing to a Dutch Paedophile magazine Paidika (1993) in which he wrote “Paedophiles should become much more positive. The should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked, and reprehensible exploiter of children”. He went on to say:
“Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an accceptable expression of God’s will for love and unity among human beings”.
No wonder many more enlightened academics like Dr Liz Davies talk of the “child sex abuse lobby”. She argues some academic writings have to be located in the context of what is known about those who spread those viewpoints and their agendas. Their views were clearly expressed in a document dated 1975 where Paedophile Information Exchange submitted evidence to the Home Office.This proposed abolition of the age of consent and the removal of consensual sexual activity at all ages from the criminal law.
Jon Henley goes on to make a number of other claims that deserve further challenge. They are listed in bold:
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection or with convicted sex offenders.
If there is such a person, daring to call themselves ‘liberal’ then I would want to know why they have not developed their thinking since the 70s to understand the dynamics of child sexual abuse and of child sexual abusers in a context of prevalence studies, survivor accounts and research, academic research and the findings and recommendations from hundreds of Inquiries. I cannot imagine why a Professor would want to situate themselves as seeing things differently from someone working in child protection. This would imply that they are confidently situating themselves outside the law, policy and practice guidance relating to the safety of children from sexual crime and abuse.
The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim, stresses Kieran McCartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the “stranger in the white van”, Mccartan says.
It is commonly stated that most abuse of children is by the family or by people well known to the child. That is almost certainly true. But Dr Liz Davies argues that we do not have full statistics of abuse of children by ‘strangers’ e.g. the children who go missing and are never found are not counted by anyone and abductions do not count within the child sex abuse statistics. If there is one point we can learn from the Savile expose – it is that it highlights the extent of ‘stranger’ abuse. This is very important too.
MAPPA statistics do not differentiate between sex offending against adults and those against children which makes analysis difficult because the numbers of known offenders against children are not easily accessed. There is also substantial under-reporting of all forms of child abuse. It is important to compare prevalence statistics, such as NSPCC research citing that nearly a quarter of young adults experienced sexual abuse during childhood, with the numbers of children subject to a protection plan for child sexual abuse which, in 2012, were just 2300 in England and Wales. Where are the statistics of children illegally adopted, children trafficked for domestic and sexual exploitation, children who are victims of the “global industries of child abuse” such as online abuse and abusive images? All these forms of child sexual abuse are under-reported and largely absent from the official statistics.
…a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them
In order to sexually abuse a child a perpetrator will often groom the child and so it is not uncommon for a child to have some positive feelings towards the person harming them. The perpetrator may also be someone who is close to them and the child wants the abuse to stop but does not want to lose the relationship. This is no way suggests that the abuse is justifiable. In fact a state of confused emotions and responses adds to the severity of the trauma experienced by the child. That this is not obvious to Jon Henley is alarming to me.
Whether or not a child voluntarily entered into sexual relations with their abuser, and how positive or negative they felt about it at the time, is irrelevant when it comes to both the long-term effects of child sex abuse, and how seriously we should treat the abuse. Even if it is true that for some survivors of this type of consensual abuse there were no “undesirable outcomes” (though this is surely hard to quantify), this is certainly not true for all, or even many, if any, children who entered into abusive relationships voluntarily; and to draw a distinction between children who were violently abused and children who submitted willingly is irresponsible and damaging when children who submitted willingly are already more likely to feel shame, self-blame and not seek help due to their belief it was their own fault.
I hope Jon Henley reflects on how his features piece has, inadvertently I’m sure, lent credibility to bogus claims about child abuse that make it harder for policy makers to act decisively. In the few short weeks I’ve been looking at this subject, I know that we are failing children today. We have to act with boldness and at scale. I’m talking to colleagues about what Labour’s future policy in child protection might look like. I hope to talk to colleagues from other parties also.
Survivors of child sex abuse commonly suffer from depression, anxiety disorders, panic attacks, phobias, flashbacks, disturbing thoughts, intrusive memories, self-harming, alcoholism, eating disorders, and feelings of shame, anger and worthlessness. This is the reality, but Jon Henley doesn’t voice it in his piece.
|
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2013/01/6445
A very sensible reply from Tom Watson MP (UK) to the dangerous garbage being purveyed in Henley's piece.
In relation to the Trauma Myth. A six year old boy being penetrated anally by the average erect male penis is not inherently traumatic? Give me a break! Ever seen forensic photographs of the aftermath of such things David?
Clancy is right about working with feelings of stigma and shame. But that as far it s goes I feel. Also that is old news to anyone working in the field. She left out some key words though. Violation, betrayal, destruction of trust, and alienation among others, seem to be ignored.
Ped support groups etc I've dealt with earlier in this thread. I won't go over that ground again. As I've said before David's arguments in this area are naive and ignorant of the practice and forensic knowledge in this field. Reading his pro-Henley piece above I find nothing in it to make me want to change that opinion
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: | | In relation to the Trauma Myth. A six year old boy being penetrated anally by the average erect male penis is not inherently traumatic? Give me a break! Ever seen forensic photographs of the aftermath of such things David? |
Clancy makes the fairly elementary distinction between violent sexual abuse and non-violent, as any sensible person would. The latter makes up the majority of child sexual abuse cases, as I'm sure you're well aware. She's obviously not asserting that a raped six year-old would not be traumatised by the act itself; I don't know why you'd even think of using that to discredit her.
As for violation, betrayal, destruction of trust and alienation, all of those terms and ideas occur frequently throughout her text, by the way. As I said, it is a profound weakness of Henley's piece that he did not address this; it leads to the unfortunate (undoubtedly unintentional) implication that he has dismissed it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | In relation to the Trauma Myth. A six year old boy being penetrated anally by the average erect male penis is not inherently traumatic? Give me a break! Ever seen forensic photographs of the aftermath of such things David? |
Clancy makes the fairly elementary distinction between violent sexual abuse and non-violent, as any sensible person would. The latter makes up the majority of child sexual abuse cases, as I'm sure you're well aware. She's obviously not asserting that a raped six year-old would not be traumatised by the act itself; I don't know why you'd even think of using that to discredit her.
As for violation, betrayal, destruction of trust and alienation, all of those terms and ideas occur frequently throughout her text, by the way. As I said, it is a profound weakness of Henley's piece that he did not address this; it leads to the unfortunate (undoubtedly unintentional) implication that he has dismissed it. |
I'm talking about "non-violent" penetration David. You have no idea what you are talking about on this topic per usual.
No I'm not aware of that minimizing distinction btw. Child sexual abuse by its nature is inherently violent. All that differs is the severity of the assault. To suggest its not traumatic if it doesn't involve rape is a proposition that would be rejected by everyone except a marginal fringe with no credibility in the field.
Good one treating Watson's reply like it doesn't exist btw. It seems Henley and his convicted pedo propagandists have more credence for you.
BTW what do NAMBLA say about the issue? 
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Watson's piece is measured and reasonable, but does little more than articulate the status quo view on this issue. Still, I have little to criticise about his article apart from his dismissal of the term 'moral panic' (a very relevant concept to keep in mind when looking at the public discussion of the topic over the past decade or so).
Clancy's position — a minority one, I acknowledge, but one backed by a considerable body of research — is not that child sex abuse is not traumatic, but that the trauma usually develops well after the event. This raises the possibility that stigma, sexual shame and even psychiatric care contribute to the long-term damage. Obviously, any physically harmful or painful act like penetration would be a more conventionally traumatic experience; we know, however, that this only accounts for a small minority of cases.
| rocketronnie wrote: | | No I'm not aware of that minimizing distinction btw. Child sexual abuse by its nature is inherently violent. All that differs is the severity of the assault. |
I acknowledge and respect your experience in the field, but comments such as these make it clear that your views on this issue are heavily politicised. One of the first steps in understanding child sexual abuse must be to at least distinguish between different kinds of acts, and 'violent' and 'non-violent' offer us an elementary distinction (just as we have the useful term 'aggravated rape' in the justice system). This is basic stuff, yet you consider any assertion of difference to be 'minimising' and proceed to make the — political, not rational — conclusion that all sexual abuse is 'violent' (and thus, I suppose, equivalent). It's pure semantics, and is the surest means to prevent any progress on the topic.
One of the most important revelations in Clancy's research was not that most child sexual abuse is non-violent and not physically harmful in nature — anybody who works in the field, including you, already knows that to be true — but that non-physically-harmful abuse is usually not, as many presumed, immediately traumatic. This is important because it gives us insight into treating victims as well as understanding (and preventing) paedophile behaviour. The fact that we inadvertently re-victimise many victims of sexual abuse ought to give many of us pause for thought; but I fear that Watson's piece, as well-meaning as it is, merely endorses the dysfunctional status quo. I think we need to hear more critical viewpoints.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Dave, all due respect, have you hard much personal experience with people who have been the subject of these kind of situations?
I haven't, so I'm happy to acknowledge I'm talking from a largely theoretical perspective and often my perspective as a parent puts emotion in front of logic.
I accept you argue things usually from the rational not the emotional, which is what I usually try to do (not always successfully) but personally I'd be inclined to give RR's first hand experience in the area more weight than what you seem to be doing.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| All? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Dave, all due respect, have you hard much personal experience with people who have been the subject of these kind of situations?
I haven't, so I'm happy to acknowledge I'm talking from a largely theoretical perspective and often my perspective as a parent puts emotion in front of logic.
I accept you argue things usually from the rational not the emotional, which is what I usually try to do (not always successfully) but personally I'd be inclined to give RR's first hand experience in the area more weight than what you seem to be doing. |
I think that's a very valid point, and it's the reason why I've often deferred to RR's knowledge and experience when this topic arises.
He's not the ultimate authority on the issue, however, and I feel — fairly or otherwise — that his arguments are often based more upon preconceived political ideas than objective fact. His claim that distinguishing different forms of sexual abuse is 'minimising', for instance, seems almost willfully contrarian. I've only talked to a few people who work in this area myself, but I already get the impression RR's stance is just one of many.
I do acknowledge I'm no expert on the issue, though, and as much as I've done a fair bit of reading about it over the last couple of years, I know that nothing can beat practical experience. So, as long as people realise that I'm tackling this from a theoretical viewpoint — as RR reminds us frequently! — I think it's good to at least be having the discussion. I think that's something he and I can agree on wholeheartedly.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
No arguments there, and BTW in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't having a dig at your lack of "life experience" 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
No arguments there, and BTW in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't having a dig at your lack of "life experience" |
And thanks for summarizing!
$£$%^%%$ uni student essays!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
LOL Jo, settle.
I don't have a problem with David's approach to things. He approaches a topic analytically and devoid of emotion, as you should when looking for facts. (spoken by a bloke with the emotional range of a teaspoon of salt)
Research and theory is one thing, life experience is another, neither hold all the answers, neither is necessarily superior. Combination of both is ideal.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Drawing on an article that relies on the political positions of long discredited self serving pedophile lobby organisations from the 70's and 80's is hardly useful nor informative.
| Quote: | | Clancy's position — a minority one, I acknowledge, but one backed by a considerable body of research — is not that child sex abuse is not traumatic, but that the trauma usually develops well after the event. This raises the possibility that stigma, sexual shame and even psychiatric care contribute to the long-term damage |
Behavioral and psychological manifestations of trauma in sexual abuse victims - whether subject to violent or "non-violent" abuse manifests itself soon after the event or during the series of events that make up the abuse. It manifests itself in hyper-vigilance, social withdrawal, emotional and social delays, emotional dysregulation, overt sexualised behaviours and a host of other well recognised presentations in the victim. These occur even before the child has much idea as to what has happened to it in an adult sense. As the victim matures the presentations may change but often these are just layered on the already dysfunctional behaviours of the victim as younger child. Clancy's suggestion is NOT backed up by the vast majority of research in this area. There are literally thousands of articles discussing this stuff out there in a myriad of journals. Clancy's points re stigma and shame etc hold limited validity and are telling us nothing new. Her emphasis that the act is not immediately (or in the short-term) harmful is just wrong. Her emphasis as you put it on responses to cultural norms as a primary source of trauma etc also vindicates to a degree the cognitive aberration common to many peds that "society makes it wrong, not me". That of course ties in neatly with the rubbish in the Henley article.
Furthermore Clancy says when she began her research at Harvard in 1996, the trauma theory held that a child will only participate in abuse if forced, threatened, or explicitly coerced. As early as 1994, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, which provides definitive diagnostic codes for therapists, stated, For children, sexually traumatic events may include developmentally inappropriate sexual experiences without threatened or actual violence or injury. Somehow to me that doesn't make Clancy's intellectual reveation all that original, despite her protestations to the contrary.
Here's a nice little rebuttal to Clancy's self promoting pop psychology:
http://trauma.blog.yorku.ca/2011/05/book-review-the-trauma-myth-by-susan-a-clancy/
I won't copy the whole article but here is a telling rebutal:
| Quote: | | n addition to Clancy’s troubling definition of trauma, another notable problem with her book is that, at times, evidence is used in a way that is frankly misleading. As mentioned above, Clancy states that not all instances of childhood sexual abuse are violent, horrific, or shocking at the time of the event and therefore, in these instances, no trauma was caused. And as discussed, this assertion is based on her faulty definition of trauma, a definition for which she has no empirical data. She constructs this definition with evidence she claims to come from reputed trauma researchers such as Judith Herman and her widely influential book, Trauma and Recovery. However, all one has to do is read Herman’s book to see that Herman’s definition of trauma is, in fact, nothing like Clancy’s. On the contrary, Herman favoured a definition that is complex, contextual, and dependent on a variety of variables such as the individual’s resilience, the environment the child is raised in, the nature and duration of the abuse, and the relationship the victim has with the abuser. Herman states that one cannot disregard any of these factors when considering whether or not an event was traumatic or when determining traumatic severity. Clancy’s narrow view on trauma proposes an almost competing model to Herman’s. Yet Clancy misleads the reader by vaguely referencing Herman, falsely implying similarity between the two approaches. |
Much of the latest work on the behaviorual and psychological manifestations of trauma in sexual abuse victims utilises the latest research relating repeated acts of sexual abuse traumas to chemical changes in the brain and it seems that there is some validity to this. However Clancy's faulty assertions regarding the nature of trauma runs counter to this placing the blame on cultural expectations, adult understandings, and 'the sexual abuse trauma industry'. She is totally silent on the question of changes of chemistry in the brain, traumas and sexual abuse even though that research has been around from 2000 at least. Why? Because she can't rationalise it away with glib assertions.
Stui says: | Quote: | | I don't have a problem with David's approach to things. He approaches a topic analytically and devoid of emotion, as you should when looking for facts |
Unfortunately this is not what has gone on here. David has presented sloppy assertions based on notions discredited decades ago and a pop psychologist whose work even a cursory internet search would have provided well thought out and authoritative rebuttals. His uncritical acceptance of Clancy's superficial work shows as has been pointed out time and again a profound ignorance of the topic he is attempting to debate here.
I recommend to David, if he does want to learn anything of this very complex subject then he should start reading:
http://sax.sagepub.com/ "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment".
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks for the links, RR. I won't go too far into bat for Clancy as I'm obviously way out of my league here, but much of her criticism of the 'trauma model' is founded upon her skepticism over psychoanalytic practices and particularly the (contested) concepts of repressed memory and Dissociative Identity Disorder. Faith in the latter was the means by which thousands of individuals in therapy in the '80s and early '90s were duped into believing that they were the victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Given that alone, and from my limited reading about the phenomenon, Clancy seems right to at least treat these concepts suspiciously. They are certainly far from universally accepted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_Identity_Disorder
I'm not sure what Clancy's critics think about such matters (your book review lists Kathy Steele, for instance, as the former president of the 'International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation'), but it would make sense that they might disagree on the very definition of trauma. Thus, when Cloitre argues the following, I suspect something rather more fundamental is at stake:
| Quote: | | In Cloitre’s view, trauma is much more nuanced than Clancy allows, with the word trauma itself stemming from the Greek word (also trauma) meaning injury or wound, and is an idea that “includes the notion that the creation of an injury does not necessarily have to hurt at the time, that the individual does not necessarily have to be aware of it as it occurs, and that individuals heal at different rates (quickly/slowly) and to different degrees.” |
Clancy would have made a lot of enemies with her attack on what she refers to as 'the trauma industry', and it's clear that her rejection of fundamental psychoanalytic ideas such as memory repression is going to put her at odds with a sizable chunk of the therapy community. Thus, while the reviewer here is disappointed with Clancy's possibly limited definition of trauma, I don't necessarily take the description of trauma offered by Cloitre or Steele to be gospel either. It seems that trauma is one of the central figures in a much larger battlefield, and my (admittedly, limited) understanding of the issues at stake makes me tend to side with McNally's lot.
I have no authority to argue Clancy's points on a technical level, however, and I do acknowledge the warning near the end of the book review:
| Quote: | | And for the individual new to the field, the clarity of the writing makes the arguments compelling. |
I understood when I picked up her book that she was presenting a contentious view. I also acknowledge the possibility that there may be flaws in her research. Be that as it may, my view that society stigmatises victims of child sex abuse was formed well before I read the book; Clancy merely added an interesting professional perspective to that, including data that even Cloitre et al wouldn't attempt to dismiss. Consider the following phenomena, for instance:
a) Media reportage of sexual abuse and sex offenders
b) Cultural stigmatisation of sex (and particularly sexual 'perversion')
c) Taboo and resulting absence of public discussion
d) Disproportionate view of crime (e.g. Paedophilia is worse than murder)
How could such a climate not cause additional harm to victims, particularly those who participated in their own abuse? How could this be anything other than a process of revictimisation?
I'll quote from an article I wrote on the subject a year or two ago. This still reflects my views on the matter fairly succinctly:
| Quote: | As elementary as it may seem to most rational people, we must ask ourselves: why is it this particular action, sexual contact with minors, that produces harmful consequences?
There are several obvious answers. Firstly, child sex abuse subverts the adult/child dynamic. The association of intimacy with sexual contact has profound consequences for current and future intimate relationships. Non-sexual intimacy is a crucial experience in childhood as well as adulthood; and, just as deprivation of this (particularly in formative stages) can lead to various emotional dysfunctions, the premature introduction of sexual contact into the realm of intimacy can have similarly negative effects. Likewise, it displaces the normal development of sexuality that occurs during puberty — it can be argued that prepubescent children are simply insufficiently intellectually formed to be able to cope with sexual interaction.
Although these are serious and substantial problems that carry far-ranging consequences (including, potentially, a sexual abuse domino effect; future distant parenting; and so on), they fail to, on their own, adequately explain the shame and guilt often felt by victims of sexual abuse — that which is the primary factor in resulting depression, self-harm, or suicide.
This aspect is, essentially, a social construct. It is not hard-wired into us to have negative feelings about physically pleasurable or neutral experiences such as sexual activity (in cases where physical pain or discomfort are not involved); it is a learned response.
It could, perhaps, be argued that sexual guilt serves some positive purposes: to protect monogamy and the family unit, perhaps; and, even, in cases where normal suppression is absent, to prevent incestuous activity. Otherwise, it is a throwback to the sexual repression of religious societies, and, in 21st century Australia, this kind of guilt is still very much rife. In media, sex-related stories are particularly salacious, with news organisations catering to our voyeurism and fascination with sexual matters. In the less reputable organisations, even rape stories are presented with titillating headlines. Likewise, abnormal and perverse sexual behaviours are presented in a similar fashion.
It is not widely admitted, but much of media and wider social treatment of paedophilia focuses primarily on the abnormality of the offenders' sexual urges as opposed to the harm caused to victims. Much of the vilification leveled at pederasts carries uncomfortable similarities to the homophobic rhetoric of a recent era. What this seems to suggest is that a significant proportion of responses to paedophilia are at least infused with — if not primarily generated by — a culture of sexual discomfort and displacement of sexual shame onto 'perverts'. The fact that paedophilia causes such damage only serves to validate these responses in the minds of the majority.
The most obvious negative consequence of this tendency is that it stigmatises the victims, too. Sexual shame is a far, far bigger phenomenon than paedophile hysteria alone, but these responses (particularly when validated by the media) actively foster the guilt that, far too often, destroys victims' lives.
This is not to remove the responsibility from child sex offenders. Shame or no shame, child sex abuse causes significant, far-reaching problems. Although a program of treatment and open discourse would be far more useful and progressive than the current paradigm, it is imperative that child sex abuse is prevented in any way possible. It is important to realise, however, that there will always be victims. We cannot catch or treat every sex offender, and neither can the phenomenon be comprehensively erased from existence. What we can do, however, is alter the way sex as a whole is perceived and discussed in society. That, too, is crucial. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David your points are well made. Most professionals who work within the field are well aware of the phenomena you describe. Whether destigmatising pedophilia generally would alter that is open to debate - it may be a two edged sword. Reduction of such stigma etc for victims or survivors is much needed however. Somehow a differentiation between perpetrators and victims/survivors needs to be made. Other techniques such as reducing self blame and working on self image are also over time effective. Culturally based shame and guilt is one element of very complex behavioural and psychological presentations that can take years to resolve if at all. Some manifestations such as Borderline Personality Disorders are unlikely to ever be resolved however.
Its all an area where much work needs to be done. A bottomless pit....
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks, RR. Although we obviously disagree on a lot of points, I appreciate the chance to hear a perspective from someone who is qualified to discuss it — obviously in the real world, that's a rare occurrence.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I just came across this photo essay and thought it was worth bumping this thread for.
https://www.lensculture.com/editors_pick?modal=true&modal_type=project&modal_project_id=105782
| Quote: | | The greatest issue faced by these men and women is not necessarily their attraction to minors itself- this is something that many learn to handle themselves insofar as either remaining completely celibate in cases where they are exclusively attracted to minors, or having legal relationships in cases where they have non-exclusive attractions to both adults and minors. Far more grappling a problem for them is the fact that the vast majority have nowhere to turn outside the relatively impersonal space provided by online forums. The stigma created by the label of paedophilia means today that thousands of people around the world must keep their attraction suppressed, creating overwhelming loneliness and depression. Those who have sought professional help to overcome their attraction face either rejection or the police: “I could have received therapy if my counsellor had not abandoned me without a referral.” |
| Quote: | | Gary preparing his pick-up for a trip to collect firewood. “I may be crazy for being so open about my paedophilia, but I have less to lose and nothing to hide. I am retired and have no children at home. I know there are vigilantes but I trust God to protect me.” |
| Quote: | | Sammy (33) has been aware of his attraction for 20 years. “When I was 10, the first time I ejaculated was thinking about a 5-year-old girl that I had seen that day. She was wearing a pretty white dress. I remember thinking it was kind of ... odd. When I was about 15, I fell in love with a 3-year-old girl. At that point it was impossible to deny that I was a paedophile.” |
| Quote: | | Having been aware of his attraction since his early teens, Jack involved himself with the gay social circles at high school - identifying with their own coming-to-terms with their sexuality. Despite trying to date a couple of guys, he never found himself interested in men his own age, though he still had to 'come out' as gay in order to hide his true attraction. He still finds himself having to maintain a homosexual facade in front of many of his friends who don't know the real nature of his sexuality. |
| Quote: | | Despite having been in a relationship with his husband for the past nine years, Ian has never come out to either him or anyone else. On meeting, I was the first person he had ever met in real life that knew about his attraction. “[Coming out to my husband] is something I've been thinking about lately, but I definitely don't want to make any snap decisions. There are so many things I need to take into consideration.” |
Well worth a look.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
