Why "Pedophile" vs. "Child Rapist" Matters To Prevention

This Again?

Apparently I need to cover this again more clearly, since my words can apparently be twisted beyond all recognition. So, yes, I am covering this topic yet one more time in the hopes that I can communicate more clearly what I intend to say about why pedophilia/pedophiles are different from child sex abuse/child rapists.

Most Child Rape Has Nothing To Do With Sex

That is where we will start: Child rape is usually not something that happens because someone wants the sexual pleasure of doing things with children. It is usually more related to power, control, or unmet mental health needs. The unmet mental health needs can range from anything to someone with lots of stress in their life, and the child is an available outlet for that stress to someone who cannot find an appropriate adult sexual partner, and again the child is an available outlet for that unmet need. Even in cases where the child rapist does have an ongoing sex drive towards children, the sex drive is less of an issue than other factors like desperation, depression, anxiety, or feeling in control.

This part is vastly oversimplified due to the fact that motivations behind child sexual abuse are vast and complex enough to fill multiple books. But the overarching point is that an ongoing sex drive towards children is usually unrelated to the motivations behind why someone sexually abuses a child.

That is important because...

...Those With A Sex Drive Towards Children Do Not Usually Rape Children

That may be difficult to believe, but it is true. Those with a sex drive towards children are not usually responsible for raping them. However, a statistically significant (30% or so) portion of sexual abuse does include a sex drive towards children as a factor, which means that something more could be done for these people to manage the issues (like desperation, depression, anxiety, and feeling out-of-control) that can arise from having a sex drive directed at children.

In other words, we need to make sure that those with this sex drive towards children have some way of getting help if they feel they need it- before they feel desperate, depressed, anxious, or out-of-control and are then at-risk for sexually abusing a child. Making help more readily available to someone with a sex drive towards kids means less kids are abused.

...Which Does Not Mean That...

• Child rape is okay
• We should accept pedophiles being sexual with children
• Pedophilia should be normalized (whatever the heck that even means, I have no idea)
• Pedophiles get a free pass to molest children

None of those four bullet points is the point, in any way shape or form. The point is that child rape is bad, and needs to be avoided, and one of the ways we can do that is by making sure that someone who feels sexually inclined towards children has whatever help they feel they might need in facing that sexual inclination. The point to them getting that help is so that they do not rape a child.

Primary Prevention Primer

Maybe I just like words that start with P, and maybe I think people sometimes do not understand how primary prevention differs from, well, prevention. But primary prevention is about stopping child sexual abuse, before it can happen. It means a child is not abused in the first place, as opposed to punishing the living snot out of whoever rapes a child (because at that point, the rape has already happened). Why "as opposed to punishing"? That is somewhat difficult to answer because...

...Mandatory Reporting Hurts Kids

It hurts children by making it less likely that adults who know sexual abuse has happened will report it or direct the child rapist to a therapist because they know that therapist will turn the rapist into the police. Also, it makes children less likely to say that they were abused, because they fear that the rapist (which is usually someone they know, love, and trust) will get in trouble, and because they want to protect the community from the knowledge that this great person that people love and trust is doing these horrid things.

When a mother does not take her teenage kid to a therapist for fear of the therapist calling the police because the teenage kid sexually abused a younger kid, that is a prevention failure. Not only will the teenage kid not be held accountable, they will not be likely to understand why they did that and are at-risk for abusing more children. If our system is set up to punish the snot out of those who rape kids, no matter who they are, it means less rapists are held accountable, less rapists get the mental health help that they need, and it means that rape happens more (which is bad (obviously)).

The Bowtie

A child rapist is someone who has made a choice to hurt a child (regardless of how the rapist justified it or what their motivations were, the behavior to rape a child is a choice). A pedophile is someone who has an ongoing sex drive directed at kids (and has likely never harmed a child). If child sexual abuse is to be prevented, and pedophiles are to get whatever help they feel they need (so that a child is not raped), then we need to keep these terms separate. Thus ends my rant against improper terminology, and my frustration with my apparent inability to communicate clearly what I mean when I say that, "We should pity pedophiles because they have an attraction they cannot help." The part to be pitied is that pedophiles have a sexual attraction to kids that they did not ask for and cannot change, and they can never act on it the way you, I, or most other human beings can be sexual with someone because the someone we are attracted to is old enough to consent to being sexual. That deserves pity, and whatever help they ask for. It does not deserve a correlation with being a child rapist. If someone has not raped a child, they should not be automatically confused with someone who has, regardless of their sexuality.

Kare 11's Botched Investigation Into Sex Offenders

To anyone living in Minnesota, Kare 11 is a household name in news. They are largely a reputable company with many investigations and news articles under their belt. However, a recent investigation into sex offenders, and the follow-up to that investigation, should appall you. Why? Because their investigation not only was extremely incomplete, but touts a single example as the legal norm in Minnesota for sex offenders, and argues that all sex offenders are dangerous. In fact, their opening headline for the primary investigation reads:

KARE 11 Investigates: Minnesota's Secret Sex Offenders

A LITTLE-KNOWN LEGAL LOOPHOLE IS ALLOWING HUNDREDS OF CHILD SEXUAL PREDATORS IN MINNESOTA TO SLIDE UNDER THE RADAR, LEAVING PARENTS IN THE DARK ABOUT THE DANGER THEY MAY POSE.

Hundreds Of Predators?

If you read very far into their report, however, you see that "hundreds of child sexual predators" includes a fair amount of juveniles who received a stay of adjudication and 210 other adults 22 years old and older. A stay of adjudication means that an offender must complete a series of requirements, and their crime is not available in public databases unless they do not complete the requirements.

Some of the requirements, for example, are to complete a lengthy probation sentence and complete sex offender treatment (treatment which usually requires at least two years to complete). Standard probation requirements for sex offenders typically involves no contact with anyone under 18 years old, and no pornography. 

What their investigation completely ignores is that Minnesota is home to 17,654 registered sex offenders as of December 6th, 2016. The ability to find out just how many of those 17,654 offenders are considered "high-risk" by the state is challenging at best. To the best of my recall, the amount of level 3 sex offenders in the state does not exceed 2,000 people. 210 people, compared with these numbers, is miniscule. The worst thing about risk level in Minnesota is that it is not determined by an actual risk-assessment administered by a trained psychologist: It is determined based entirely on Minnesota's own criteria, which was developed by studying sex offenders released from prison.

To the average person, that may sound like a good thing... until you realize that many low-level sex offenders, including those convicted of child sexual abuse and sexual abuse material crimes, are frequently given probation if they are a first-time offender. The screening tool that Minnesota uses to determine the risk level of its sex offenders does not have as much reliability as other screening tools, like the Static-99R. More work is needed.

What About Recidivism And Megan's Law?

To make these matters worse, Minnesota's Department of Corrections has done two "recent" studies on sex offenders that would matter to the average person: The 2007 report on recidivism, and the report on Megan's Law in 2008. Both of these reports are as flawed as the system they use to assign risk level: The 2007 report on recidivism looks at 3,166 sex offenders released from a correctional facility (read: prison) between 1990 and 2002, which means their report does not look at the vast majority of sex offenders, only those released from prison. 

The report discussing Megan's Law is also extremely narrow in its scope, and contains methodological errors that would shame any statistician: They conclude, based on their study of recidivism rates of 155 level three offenders subject to notification and 125 who were not, that notification has a strong deterrent effect and reduces recidivism. They essentially claim that correlation proves causation, with no control methods used to distinguish  between the results of these groups. 

Overall Sex Offender Statistics

The statistics discussed in the aforementioned reports are shockingly incomplete, and give the public just enough data to shut up. However, a plethora of other studies have also been done on sex offenders. You have heard me mention them here numerous times: A study done in New York on 21 years of arrest data found that 95% of new sexual crimes were committed not by registered sex offenders, but first-time offenders new to the criminal justice system. Other studies have yielded similar results, usually finding that at least 90% of sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. This means that the numerous processes we have to address sex offenders attempts to answer approximately 5-10% of new sex crime. 

That study, combined with the numerous meta-analyses done on sex offender recidivism, point to the idea that sex offenders are not nearly as dangerous as people believe: Around 12% of sex offenders will re-offend with a sexual crime, and around 30-40% will reoffend with any crime. That contrasts to the national average for criminal recidivism being around 60-75%. It has been said in media articles on the subject that the only crime with a lower recidivism rate is murder. 

Cost

I know from previous experience with the Minnesota legislature that Minnesota spends a few hundred thousand on preventing sexual assault, and I learned recently that we spend $93 million on managing and tracking sexual offenders. I believe this is very imbalanced, and makes it clear that our focus is not on preventing sexual crimes, but on reacting where they do occur.

The Take-Away

Kare 11 focuses on a miniscule fraction of 5% of new sex criminals in the making. Already, some of Minnesota's legislators, including Gov. Mark Dayton and Rep. Tony Cornish are promising to fix how stays of adjudication are used. But nothing is being promised to address and prevent 95% of new sex crime, which is not committed by sex offenders, but by those new to the criminal justice system. Minnesota, like so many other states, is focusing its efforts on endlessly punishing those who pose the smallest amount of risk in terms of future sex crimes, and focusing next to nothing on preventing sexual crimes before they can happen. Indeed, Minnesota spends $93 million a year on SORN policies, and only $300,000 on sexual assault prevention. Our priorities are not on keeping the public safe.

As an advocate pushing the end of child sexual abuse before it can happen, I am outraged that not only Minnesota's leaders, but also its major media outlets, are doing nothing about the majority of sexual crimes in Minnesota. We are weak: The only statement worth supporting in Kare 11's investigation is that Minnesota has created an atmosphere of legal tolerance of sexual violence. While that statement was intended to address how sex offenders are treated in the legal system, I think that statement is used far too narrowly. 

I am ashamed to call myself a Minnesotan.

Alternative Solutions

There are several solutions that many of my readers may already be familiar with, like knowing the facts and the warning behaviors in potential abusers, and many of my other suggestions center around reforming sexual offender laws to be more effective at protecting the public. Some of them concern educating families, and educating children.

Sex offender registration needs reform, primarily because it lumps low-risk and no-risk offenders in with high-risk and recidivist sex offenders, which means law enforcement has a harder job investigating sex crimes. Instead, it would be best to use the money currently allocated to the sex offender registry in each state to perform psychological risk assessments on each offender. These risk assessments would divide only into low and high risk. These assessments would be done by an independent board of expert psychologists in each state, and only those who score as high-risk will be registered with law enforcement. The specific statute being charged and convicted should have no bearing on risk level, and the circumstances of the offense and risk assessments should be used as the determining factor for risk. As risk level and offender registration are not punitive measures, they could only be used as a factor when determining a criminal sentence. 

The trend in research identifies several issues with publicly identifying sex offenders in the community, commonly known as sex offender notifications. Many of these issues can be solved by only notifying the community in certain special circumstances: Multiple sex crimes, a high-risk score on risk assessment, release from prison, and two or more psychological disorders could be some of the criteria. The compliance patrols that are currently aimed at low-risk and no-risk offenders could instead be aimed at those who meet enough criteria to warrant public notification. Not all high-risk offenders would warrant public notification, only those who meet enough criteria would qualify. Anyone subject to sex offender notifications would be incarcerated for life if they commit another offense of any kind.

The research surrounding residency restrictions is nearly unanimous in saying that they do not keep the public safer, and in some cases, can lead to increased homelessness. This increased homelessness has been shown to increase risk factors for further offending, as well as making it more difficult for offenders to reestablish themselves as productive members of society. Therefore, residency restrictions should be completely abolished except for those warranting community notification, as covered in the heading "sex offender notifications". As such, any such offender committing another offense of any kind would be subject to a life sentence.

In many states, sex offenders are restricted from random things that do not have any effect on public safety. For example, sex offenders in some states cannot use the internet, or cannot use certain aspects of the internet, such as for gaming, social media, or even commenting on the news. In other places, sex offenders cannot participate in Halloween or attend the state fair. As 95% of new sex crime is perpetrated by those without criminal convictions, these restrictions do nothing to keep the public safer and put onerous enforcement requirements on supervising corrections officers and law enforcement that could be better spent detecting new sex crimes or educating the community regarding safety and prevention. 

Some funding originally directed at sex offender registration in the past must be directed to educating families about appropriate safety plans, facts around child sexual abuse and sexual assault, warning behaviors in potential abusers, resources for individualized help on a variety of topics, and normative vs. atypical sexual behavior in children and teenagers. This education plan would be created using accurate terminology, research-based factoids, and produced by experts in these areas. 

In line with the aforementioned education of families, schools and families should have access to age-appropriate sexual education covering a wide variety of topics to prepare each child for life in the adult world. Such education should be covered both at school and at home, and the standards for this education should be a principled skeleton of topics. It would then be decided on the local level how to cover each principle, so that each community has a say in practicing this education. These principles should include:

• Legal and ethical specifics on the subject of consent
• Anatomical health practices including STD's, safe sex, and physical boundaries
• How to form and keep social and emotional boundaries
• Resources that a child can use for a variety of situations including but not limited to, sexual abuse, mental health disorders, physical health concerns, and relationship health.

Circumcision: Why I Mention It

Introduction

Circumcision has been in the news recently, although you probably skim over it. The Huffington Post recently did an article about it, and the New York Post did an article awhile back. Male circumcision has been claimed to have health benefits and is said to reduce the risk of STD's/STI's. However, the science and ethics of circumcision make it perfect fodder for this blog.

My Story

Circumcision has always been an odd topic for me. Growing up, I always peppered my mother with questions like why my penis had a ring around it, and I was always baffled by her answer: "Because you were circumcised as a baby." So, I asked what that was, only to get, "They removed your foreskin." And I asked what that was, and I never really understood what it meant. All I really understood was that people were healthier without it, that it is easier to clean without it.

Hindsight is always 20/20, they say, and they are right. Finally, when I was in middle school, I saw a picture of an "uncut" male, and I understood what was missing. The part that stood out to me was that the foreskin had veins and seemed to be very much a part of the rest of the penis. That is when I first started feeling loss, and that the choice was not mine. My thought at the time was that my parents had a part of my penis cut off because a doctor said it was better for me. It seemed odd.

Fast forward into high school, and I still felt that same loss, and it was the same in college. As I started getting into learning about child sexual abuse and the issues surrounding it, I was getting into ways of improving myself. I was figuring out that there were things about me that I always saw as permanent that could change. Some of them were psychological- that I could change how I thought about myself. Others were more educational- that I could learn another language, as I had always wanted to do. But one of the tie-ins was physical: That I could restore my foreskin.

Foreskin... restoration?

Yes, foreskin restoration. The process works on the same principle as those that put guages in their ears, or plates, or neck stretching: You put skin or some other body part under a mild amount of stretching/stress, and the body can be molded as desired. There are devices sold that can help accomplish this. I thought it was a great idea because it is a long process that becomes habitual over time.

Ethical Issues

I see circumcision and intactivism (the advocacy for an intact penis and against male genital mutilation, as circumcision is sometimes called) as a basic human rights issue just like child sexual abuse is. In a case of child sexual abuse, the child is subjected to behavior they are not ready to handle and do not have any control over. In a case of circumcision, the child is subjected to a surgical procedure that is usually medically unnecessary and does not have any control over. Both are human rights violations.

While the harm between the two varies, the ethical issues are very similar. Circumcision has risk of complications that in some cases cause permanent damage to the penis. The damage is physical and only partially reversible. The nerves, the mechanism that holds the foreskin to cover the glans/head of the penis, the frenulum and the function and role it has to the function of the foreskin are still lost. While the functions can be partially restored, the skin will not stay on the glans the same as if the penis had never been circumcised.

To take that away from a child without their ability to choose it is barbaric, just as it is barbaric to take a child's innocence by sexually abusing them. The idea that circumcision is done for health reasons is just a distorted justification because of the poor science that is used to support that justification (there are many other articles on the subject), similar to the reasoning that a child molester uses to justify their abuse is just a justification.

A Child Has a Right To Their Body

The bottom line with both issues is the right of the child: In circumcision, the child has a right to an intact body and to make informed decisions about their body. In the absence of medical necessity, the child is being physically altered for no reason. In child sexual abuse, the child has a right to live a trauma-free life that does not involve people crossing their boundaries. That is why prevention advocates often talk about children having the ability to set boundaries and make their own decisions. The right of the child takes priority in both issues, and the concern in both is for the child.

That is why I occasionally tweet about circumcision, and that is why I am an intactivist. I do not see how anyone could be against child sexual abuse because of the rights of the child, but be pro-circumcision and ignore the rights of the child. It does not make sense and is hypocritical to be against one form of human rights violations, but in favor of another violation. My advocacy, if nothing else, is aimed at being consistent.

Defining Child Sexual Abuse: A Therapeutic Approach

It is always helpful to define terms, particularly when terms can be as controversial as the subject matter is. Child sexual abuse is a controversial topic because it is a broad topic. Contained in that one subject are consent laws, mandatory reporting laws, civil laws aimed at improving public safety, SORNA, residency restrictions, sex offenders, law enforcement training, and a slew of other items. Many people love to debate controversial issues.

I used to be one of those people, but on this topic, I have a generally narrower focus. I specifically avoid the legal subjects involving age of consent and mandatory reporting because those issues are never-ending. I also avoid using a legal definition of child sexual abuse, because it is overly broad. It is possible for a legal act of child sexual abuse to occur, yet have the legal victim be an enthusiastic participant in the activity, particularly among older teenagers. It is also possible for teens to send explicit images of themselves to others, and have them be legally charged with child pornography, with themselves being both the legal victim and perpetrator.

That is why I avoid legal conversations. I avoid age of consent, because no matter what number is picked, there will always be someone below that number who is mature enough to consent, and someone above that number who is not mature enough to consent. I likewise try to avoid a legal definition of child sexual abuse: No matter how diligent or understanding the police are, there will always be someone arrested for something that was not harmful to the legal victim.

Therapeutic?

I try my best to be clear that when I talk about child sexual abuse, I use a therapeutic approach. In my treatment/support group, they considered a sexual offense as an act that crossed someone's sexual boundary in a way that harmed or traumatized them. For me, the definition of child sexual abuse is tied with harm done to the victim: If there was no harm, there was no victim, if there was no victim, it was not abuse. The act is tied to sexual exploitation and the aftermath of the act: If the act was done by someone several years older than the victim, and the act was sexually exploitative, coercive, and resulted in harm, it was abusive.

So... what is a child?

In talking about perpetrators of abuse of said children, there is typically an age difference of at least a few years. For example, an 11-year-old touching the private parts of a 7-year-old would be considered child sexual abuse if the 7-year-old was harmed. Developmentally, such behavior is not expected or considered the norm. If a 7-year-old is touching the private parts of another 7-year-old, that behavior is considered normal curiosity and exploration. The key is an age difference. Many groups push for considering anyone under 18 a child, but I do not think the reality is that simple unless a therapeutic definition is used for abuse.

Practically speaking...

That is great, but how does that look practically? An adult who photographs a child when they are nude is sexually abusive if that child is harmed in the process, or afterwards by knowing the photograph is on the internet. They are not if the child is unharmed during or afterwards (still illegal). Someone several years older who touches a child's private parts are sexually abusive if the child is uncomfortable with it, and are harmed by it. They are not abusive if the child is unharmed and okay with it (still illegal). Someone who, as a 19-year-old, has sex with their 15-year-old lover, is sexually abusive if the 15-year-old was harmed and did not consent to the act. They are not abusive if the teen was unharmed and consented (still illegal in the US). A lewd conversation between an adult and a child, if the child was harmed, it was abusive (legal unless solicitation was involved).

Those are just a few out of many possible situations. You might ask me, "How can you describe a situation where a child goes through that and isn't harmed? That's impossible." However, those situations are real and documented. There are a number of studies that show that there are some children who are either unharmed, or move past the event enough that it ended up not being traumatic. Running With Scissors is a book where one such situation is detailed by the author. The book is an autobiography. As I have pointed out before, those situations do not justify or make legal the acts that do not result in harm, it means a therapeutic definition is important.

Researchers prefer to view those situations as examples of people overcoming potentially traumatic events. I have the perspective that these children are well-adjusted because they were able to accurately examine how they felt about the events, and decided for themselves that they were not harmed. You could say that these children are very robust and emotionally healthy, because they were able to look at an event and decide for themselves how they felt about it. Here is one great example of an act that was consensual, that the teenager did not report harm, but was still illegal and still overreacted to by the adults in their life. Bear in mind that this would have still been illegal if the man was not on probation for a different sex crime. Also, that case is a great example for groups that discuss age of consent laws. They would point out that in most parts of the world, including Europe, that act would not have been illegal. It perfectly illustrates why legal discussions on this subject are never-ending: What if the girl was 15? 14? 12? What if she still consented then? How does she know what consent is?

Primary prevention tie-in?

The presence of these situations is critical to the primary prevention of child sexual abuse, and here is why. The presence of these situations means that there are children who knew their own boundaries and feelings well enough to know when something did or did not cross those boundaries. It is a win for primary prevention, because these select few children were able to express themselves clearly. It serves as a model for what happens when children are able to create, set, and maintain their own boundaries. If they are able to look at something potentially traumatic as a neutral event, they will likewise be better able to determine when something crosses boundaries and causes them harm.

It is also a reminder that when approaching a child who was impacted by sexually exploitive behavior, we must let the child tell their own story. It is a reminder that overreacting can make a neutral situation traumatic for the child, and to respect the child enough to tell their own story.

Why the emphasis on children?

When it comes to detecting when abuse is occurring, preventing it from happening, and holding perpetrators accountable, the first priority must be the child. While the surrounding community does have feelings about abusive events, the primary impact is to the child. No one should ever presume to tell a child how to feel, only help the child work through how they feel and what they think. It is extremely common for children who have been abused to care for and trust their abuser. The child has a right to feel that way, just as they have a right to hate their abuser. Without that sort of emphasis on children, it is possible to dictate how the child feels and make the impact and effects of the abuse worse than they initially were. Magnifying the effects of child sexual abuse is obviously not something to be striving for, and that is why an emphasis on children must take priority. Without it, primary prevention cannot happen.

Final thoughts...

I know there are some people out there who might twist my argument here to mean that sexual acts with children are acceptable if the child is not harmed, and I must be clear that just because there are children who are not harmed does not make the behavior on the part of the older youth or adult acceptable or moral. The high potential for harm makes the act immoral and unacceptable, every time. Just because even 15/100 cases do not result in harm does not make the behavior itself okay. Another issue is that child sexual abuse does not always result in readily apparent harm. Sometimes, it can take years for someone to realize they were in fact traumatized.

My own abuse was exactly like that: It affected how I saw myself and the world around me. It was not until I began talking about my past that I came to a more realistic understanding of what happened to me, where previously I saw it as normal. I felt shamed for the normal experiences because I did not believe I had the right to enjoy them. But I felt that the abusive experiences were normal for no other reason than that they happened to me. And how I felt about everything was a garbled mess because I had no idea how to properly feel or identify my emotions.

While it is possible that children involved in sexual acts with older youth or adults will not be traumatized or harmed does not make the behavior acceptable. Just because a handful of alcoholics are able to recover to the point of being able to drink socially with no problems does not mean that all alcoholics will get to that point.