Have you ever been to law school? I have not either. I got the same basic overview of how the government works that you probably did: The three branches exist to create checks and balances, blah, blah, blah... It has been quite a few years since taking those classes.
But one thing I do know is that the United States Constitution and its amendments exist to ensure that people are treated with fairness and equality, even those accused of crimes. They exist to ensure that the government does not create laws that single people out, deal cruel or unusual punishment, and create a system in which people are treated as people. The recent trend with sex offender laws has been to ignore these rights and laws when it is convenient to "protect the public" and other non-proven fallacious reasons.
There has been a push lately in several states to eliminate the criminal statute of limitations for child sex crimes. Here in Minnesota, that push came several years ago and resulted in eliminating the civil statute of limitations. In other words, victims can come forward at any time in their life to sue and get money from their abuser. This sounds like a great idea, given the financial and other impacts that child sexual abuse has on its victims. However, there is one problem with pushing for this for the criminal statute of limitations: It does not prevent child sexual abuse.
It is yet another piece of legislation, like our current sex offender registry, that is created to punish and ostracize people for committing a particular crime. Yes, that crime is gruesome and has horrid consequences for the victims. However, the criminal justice system is not in place to exact vengeance on criminals, but to ensure that they pay a cost for what they did, and be reformed enough to make sure it will not happen again. That idea of reform is why probation and parole exist.
Many, if not most, child sexual abusers in larger counties will get a sentence of probation, maybe with a little bit of jail time. While repeat abusers and abusers in smaller counties do end up in prison, they are usually paroled if they have good behavior. While I am unfamiliar with the legal concepts involved here, I will say this: Getting a conviction well past the statute of limitations for a crime like child sexual abuse is unlikely to yield prison time or even jail time, particularly if the accused has spent any length of time in the community without similar allegations coming forward. As I have discussed before, the likelihood that sex offenders and child sexual abusers will repeat their crimes is much lower than that of an average criminal. So the whole "prevent another child from being abused" is just a distraction, not a real argument.
I Am Against Changing The Criminal Statute Of Limitations
I am against changing the criminal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, because doing so would not only draw out a victim's pain when they do decide to come forward (by way of a trial that rehashes old memories and feelings), it is extremely unlikely to assist in the prevention of the crime in the first place. It is aimed at punishing people well after their transgressions have occurred, at which point the aim is not justice, restitution, or closure, but about exacting vengeance upon the accused. While child sexual abuse is certainly a crime with very low false reporting, changing the criminal statute of limitations can create a system in which someone literally has no defense against an accusation because of the nature of the crime involved, and that can be abused. I am also against changing the criminal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse because of the impact it has on the victims. Holding onto that baggage further by seeking "justice" against the abuser means that the abuser continues to have control over the victim... by the victim's own choice.
For Victims
I would encourage victims to forgive, heal, and move on so as to not give any more power to the abuser that had such a large impact on their life. Holding that grudge does not affect your abuser, it affects you. Perhaps I am being overly harsh and direct in saying that. Perhaps I have no idea what sort of pain you went through. Perhaps I do not know enough about the legal issues involved. However, your abuser already took things from you when they abused you. Holding a grudge against them means you are letting them take more time, emotion, and energy from you, but this time by your choice and not theirs. Most programs will tell you that someone goes from being a victim, to being a survivor, to being a thriver. You cannot get to being a thriver by holding onto what happened. You need to let it go: Not for them, not so they get away with it (they already have), but for you. You deserve peace.
The Three Terms
Pedophilia is the condition of being attracted to prepubescent children, while pedophilic disorder is the disorder that fits the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V. Hebephilia is the condition of being attracted to pubescent children. Ephebophilia is the condition of being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents. It is possible for anyone who has at any time been attracted to those age groups to not meet the rest of the criteria for the disorder, and it is possible that those who have a primary attraction to one or more of those age groups do not meet the rest of the criteria for the disorder.
What Is Pedophilia? The Simple Answer:
There is no simple answer. I am sorry, if you were looking for one, that you came here to find one. But the topics of child sexual abuse, of sexual interest in children, and of child sexual exploitation are vast and complex. None of them can be explained, solved, or reacted to simply. Attempting to oversimplify these issues will likely result in more harm, not less. Popular Culture
Most people think that pedophilia is the sexual abuse of a child, and equate pedophiles with people who have molested or abused children. They lump people who have viewed child pornography into this group, even though the impact of viewing child pornography is more about creating both a psychological and popularity demand (similar to how posting on social media gets 'liked', and results in more posts, the download counts of child sexual exploitation material result in a sort of internet popularity). To most people, pedophilia is synonymous with the sexual abuse of a child. This is wrong. Most abusers do not have a sexual attraction to children, and most who have a sexual attraction to children do not sexually abuse children.
Why Is Usage Important?
It is easy to think that sexual abuse could never happen to anyone you know. The statistics make it extremely likely that you already do know someone who was affected by child sexual abuse, but it is extremely unlikely that they will talk about it. By portraying those who do sexually abuse as the filthy, monstrous, inhuman pedophile, we blind ourselves to the facts about child sexual abuse. To use the incorrect terminology, to dehumanize child abusers means that we reinforce the myths that enable abuse to happen. That extreme minority of sexual predators relies on the fact that most people believe the myths about abuse and not the facts. And those that have already abused a child rely on those myths to ensure that they will not face the consequences for their actions. Those myths mean that abusers can walk free, and that the child will never tell. Breaking those myths is what will help prevent sexual abuse.
An Attraction To Children
Some people automatically equate an attraction to children (children of any age) with pedophilia. Some people also automatically equate pedophilia with child sexual abuse. Neither of these associations are completely accurate. While someone may have occasional attractions to children, that would not automatically necessitate a pedophilia diagnosis according to the DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fifth Edition). One can find pedophilic disorder, or pedophilia, on page 697 (PDF page # 729). There are three diagnostic criteria for pedophilia: Recurrent, sexually arousing fantasies, or urges, or behaviors involving prepubescent children; The person with the disorder has acted upon them or they find the fantasies or urges to cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty; The person with the disorder is at least 16 years old and is at least 5 years older than the prepubescent child. There is also a note not to include someone in late adolescence in a sexual relationship with a 12-13 year old. That is just the criteria for pedophilic disorder.
There are other tidbits of useful information in the DSM-5, like the fact that pedophilia is treated as a different concept from pedophilic disorder, or the fact that a diagnosis in adolescence can be problematic due to the difficulty in determining what is curiosity and what is worthy of a diagnosis (thus the criteria of being 16 and 5 years older). They discuss the fact that pedophilic disorder can wax or wane with or without treatment due to differences in the distress of the person, social impairment, or likelihood to be sexual with a child, but that while the distress and social impairment might change, the sexual attraction to children (pedophilia) does not. In other words, pedophilia and its relatives, or the sexual attraction, functions as a sexual orientation that cannot be changed, cured, or treated.
In other words, pedophilia is a very specific thing that must meet very specific criteria to qualify as pedophilic disorder. It is possible to have the attractions and fantasies involving children without having the urge to act upon them. It is possible to be attracted to a child that is in the midst of puberty and not fit the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, because the child they are attracted to is not prepubescent. It is possible to be attracted to a particular age group of children without having distress or interpersonal difficulties and thus not fit the diagnostic criteria for a disorder.
In short, it is possible to have an attraction to children and have it not be worthy of the label "disorder". Having a disorder means that treatment and support are suggested to help manage the disorder and make the disorder less impactful. Having a disorder does not mean that someone is "damaged goods" or in any way deficient.
Medically And In Psychology
Medically and in psychology, pedophilia is a narrow and specific ongoing attraction to prepubescent children while hebephilia is a narrow and specific attraction to pubescent children and ephebophilia is a narrow and specific attraction to post-pubescent children. Popular usage of these terms, particularly pedophilia and pedophile, are not accurate to the understanding of doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists who specialize in paraphilias, which is a catch-all term for the variety of sexual disorders people can have. As a researcher will tell you, there is no clear line on which sorts of sexual interests warrant a diagnosable disorder and which are just unusual. Paraphilia, like anything within mental health subjects, is a vast subject with a lot of debate over concepts, how those concepts are labeled, and how those labels can bring unnecessary weight to the concept they are meant to describe.
For example, pedophilia brings a different response than saying "having an ongoing sexual attraction to children who have not hit puberty", just as "child rapist" and "sex offender" have different connotations and arouse different feelings. That is why most academics prefer to use the term paraphilia rather than the more common "sexual perversion" or "sexual deviance" that would be more recognizable. While I am not a researcher, I think there is a lot of merit to choosing terms and labels that both accurately describe the concept they attempt to illustrate. However, there does come a point at which certain labels that, while they may be more accurate, are just too much for the average person to comprehend or process. For example, trying to get everyone to use the more technically accurate "child sexual exploitation material" rather than "child pornography" is just something that will not catch on except in academia.
With all of those discussions aside, I think it is safe to conclude that when certain conditions are met, an attraction to prepubescent children meets the criteria for pedophilia and the person with the condition can be known as a pedophile. Such a person would have the disorder of pedophilia. Disorder Or Not?
A rather valid point is made about disorders: It is a stigmatizing and heavy word depending on who is using it and how, and who is hearing it and in what context. There is no universal understanding of what a disorder is (though, to that point, there is no universal understanding of most common words, and context, as always, plays a heavy role on how words are meant, perceived, and received), but I think we can generally say that a mental health disorder is something that warrants support and care so that someone with a disorder can live a life that is not as impacted by the disorder. Maybe this is just my perception, but I think that having a disorder is not a reflection of our choice to have it or not, but what someone with a disorder chooses to do about having it.
Words are always limited because of how they are perceived, and it is just not possible to be 100% accurate to the concept a word is meant to communicate. I think "disorder" is the word we have to describe a mental condition that causes interpersonal or personal difficulty and distress without automatically being negatively stigmatizing. There are some terms that will just never catch on in popular usage. While some people can waste time discussing what terms are more technically accurate and why, and what words best fit the concepts attempting to be communicated, I think those are discussions that will fly over the average person's head and bore most audiences. The trick in advocacy is coming up with the right words to use in the right order so that the wrong message is not conveyed, and so that an accurate picture is painted. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to do that in very few words.
With all of that said, pedophilia and its relatives, in general, should be considered a disorder in the vast majority of cases. Whether admitted by the person with the attraction or not, having such a stigmatized disorder automatically results in distress if one is aware of the stigma with which it is viewed by the majority of the world's population. While it is possible to have the attraction without having interpersonal difficulty or distress that would make it a disorder, those cases are likely rare because of the current climate and general attitude towards such an attraction, though the disorder seems to stem not from the attraction of itself, but the societal attitude and response to it and the internalized stigmas and beliefs that cause those difficulties.
Regarding the distinction between an orientation and a disorder, the DSM-5 states: "However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt,shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder."
Primary Prevention Tie-In
If you have followed this blog for any length of time, you know I harp on the fact that child sexual abuse is not often perpetrated by people with attractions to children, and that people with attractions to children do not often sexually abuse children. This distinction is important because it serves to educate people on the reality of who sexually abuses children and the factors that lead them to engaging in behaviors that have serious effects on children. Without knowing who abuses children and why, child sexual abuse cannot be prevented.
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.
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.
I recently joined Twitter to grow my ability to advocate and share resources, and I have had several interactions with Ender Wiggin, who wrote an outstanding article about what it is like to grow up with pedophilia and why pedophiles do - and do not - need help. This article was originally found here. Ender Wiggin has also written other articles on the topic of pedophilia.
The only thing I would add to this story is that there are organizations that offer expert guidance and know exactly who to connect a pedophile in your area to the help that they need, and have sex-specific training to know when someone really is a risk to children and when they are not, regardless of mandatory reporting. If you live in Germany, they have a program for that also. There is also an online support system available as well that Ender also mentions.
I would add that I was treated by a therapist who is a member of the referral link, and I can personally vouch for them. While they may refer a pedophile to sex offender treatment regardless of whether they have had contact with a child, that treatment will be tailored to the individual's needs. Within this organization, their goal is to come up with an individual plan for someone to stay safe and address their ongoing mental health needs. Their goal is not to stigmatize, report, or abuse their position: It is to identify the risks, needs, and beliefs that Ender mentions so that one can know how to respond to them and manage them.
But enough of my introduction. Here is his story:
Help!
What help do pedophiles need?
One of the most common things us pedophiles get told by people online — other than “kill yourself” — is “get help!” Of course, by that they mean to imply that every pedophile needs psychiatric or psychological help or treatment to either a) be “cured” of our terrible “illness” or b) to help us “manage” our condition and resist our “urges” and not abuse a child.
The former comes from the misunderstood idea that pedophilia is a “disease” that can somehow be “cured”. While it is true that pedophilia is currently regarded as a mental disorder, there are many nuances and the same could be said not that long ago about homosexuality. In addition, even if considered a disorder, it is widely accepted by the people that research pedophilia and treat pedophiles that the condition of being sexually attracted to children is impossible to change or “cure”. It is not the purpose of this post to explore this though, I will do so shortly in a dedicated post.
The latter is simply based on biased and prejudiced views and a misunderstanding of pedophilia as a condition. The reality is that the only pedophiles people hear about are those that have made it to the news headlines for having molested children or been caught producing, distributing or downloading child pornography, so it is only natural for the public to believe that all pedophiles indulge in one or more of those things and only through a very close monitoring can they be persuaded or prevented from doing so. In their view, a pedophile has to be constantly supervised or otherwise they are a threat to every child they encounter, which is simply ridiculous.
Others believe all pedophiles should be chemically (if not physically) castrated — given testosterone-reducing or otherwise libido-reducing medication — which is apparently the only way they believe a pedophile is able to refrain from acting on our attraction. The reality is quite different though. I will address child pornography in other posts in the future, but when it comes to actually sexually molesting children, it is generally as simple as knowing that it is wrong and that there is a very high risk of causing the child severe harmfor a pedophile to refrain from ever doing so. We are not by definition monsters who wish to inflict pain and suffering onto others in order to achieve our own pleasure. We can be as empathetic as anyone and the desire to not cause harm is more than enough for the majority of us to abstain from acting on our attractions. Everyone is in control of their own actions at all times, and if anyone doubts their ability to refrain from acting on their attractions it is a self-inflicted doubt caused by internalizing the prevailing narrative that all pedophiles are bound to molest a child sooner or later, but not because pedophilia somehow impairs one’s self-restraint, because it just doesn’t. As I explained in my article about sexual fantasies, pedophilia is not a compulsion or an irresistible urge, and the notion that it is so is a misguided one based on prejudice and stigma.
Do pedophiles need therapy?
If the attraction to children cannot be made to disappear through therapy, do pedophiles need therapy at all? Like I mentioned above, many pedophiles have self-inflicted doubts about their ability to refrain from acting on their attractions because they have internalized the message that they are destined to do so at some point in their lives. These deeply internalized beliefs are often accompanied by feelings of desperation and self-loathing, and often even suicidal feelings. Pedophiles have no inherent desire to harm children, and the thought that they will inevitably harm one is distressing to the core. In addition, there is a very real risk that these beliefs turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not something I’m simply making up on the spot; it’s widely acknowledged by psychologists. In this article you can read about how your beliefs about yourself that you have internalized since childhood have a very important impact on your behavior. I’ll quote here just one sentence, which I think sums it up pretty nicely:
«Your beliefs about yourself are like an invisible, underlying script from which you unknowingly act out your life.»
Allowing pedophiles self-confidence is key in preventing child sexual abuse
If you insist on perpetuating the false narrative that pedophiles are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to explode, you are actually hindering pedophiles’ ability to refrain from acting out on their attractions. Of course some people are more susceptible to those external messages than others, and many are able to realize they are not true and overcome their self-inflicted doubt. But sometimes it takes time, and support. Peer support through online forums like Virtuous Pedophiles can be extremely important, and I read testimonies daily about how the support received there has helped improve a pedophile’s self-confidence in their commitment to never offend. That is not always enough, however, and some pedophiles would greatly benefit from professional mental health support from a good psychologist or psychiatrist, in order to overcome the deeply internalized belief that they will inevitably offend.
In addition, you have to understand what it is like to grow up and realize you are sexually attracted to children. The loneliness, the isolation, the fear that someone will discover this part about you, the knowledge that most people out there would hate you if they knew… these are things many people growing up with more mainstream but still unconventional sexual orientations know very well, and should at least be sympathetic to what it’s like. As I mentioned in one of my first articles, the suicide rates among LGBT teens are four to six times higher than among the general population of teenagers. The fear that the people that are supposed to love you unconditionally — such as your parents and your close friends — would reject you can be the most crippling for a young person. Furthermore, pedophiles face the messages they hear and read in the news and on the internet about how they are the scum of the earth, less than human and deserve to be slaughtered painfully and mercilessly, or physically castrated. Being exposed to these can be incredibly disheartening, and it can take a long time to grow the skin to be able to realize they’re only based on ignorance and prejudice, and that they can be dismissed as the product of blind hatred and little rational thought.
For all these reasons, many pedophiles develop severe depression, anxiety disorders, paranoia and live in a state of constant distress which is not conducive to remaining non-offending. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that pedophiles who offend often do so when they are at their lowest. Being in a healthy state of mind is also key in building that self-confidence I talked about earlier. That is not true just for child sexual abuse though, anyone that knows anything about crime prevention will tell you the same thing about any other crime.
Do pedophiles have access to therapy?
People often say that there’s nothing stopping pedophiles from going to a therapist, but the reality is not so simple. Many countries have bought into the incorrect assumption that all pedophiles eventually molest, and have enacted mandatory reporting laws. If someone admits to a licensed therapist that they are attracted to children, they could automatically be deemed a risk and be reported to the authorities, even if they have never done anything wrong in their entire lives. In theory, therapists should only report if the pedophile is admitting to be actively committing abuse or if there is a clear risk for a specific child. The latter, though, is subjective enough that it could spell disaster for any pedophile that has contact with children in their life in any capacity — whether has his own children (like many of us do) or works with children in any way, such as being a teacher, a youth coach, a camp counselor, etc. Additionally, imagine if someone disclosed their attractions to a therapist, the therapist decided not to report him and the individual ended up sexually abusing a child. The consequences for the therapist would be devastating, and therefore they’re much rather be trigger-happy when it comes to reporting than favor patient-doctor confidentiality. Last but not least, although that is thankfully not something too widespread, therapists are human beings often subject to the same prejudices as everyone else, and some genuinely believe the ticking time bomb theory, and that it is right to report a pedophile to the authorities even if they haven’t actually done anything wrong. Since they will face no legal consequences for violating confidentiality, they are free to report that filthy pedo without fear of losing their license.
I have read horror stories of what happened to pedophiles that had never committed a crime or harmed anyone and confided in a mental health professional, only to be reported and have their lives turned upside down, being outed to their friends and relatives, being removed from their homes and essentially affecting their lives in a very negative way. Thankfully, many other pedophiles have found non-judgmental and sympathetic therapists that have been able to help them overcome their depression and self-hatred, and build up their self-confidence. Knowing the risks involved in even admitting your attractions to a therapist, most pedophiles simply never go see one, and even more so those who have the highest levels of self-doubt about their ability to refrain from acting, since they would be the most likely to be reported. So far from helping to protect children, these mandatory reporting laws are deterring the pedophiles that feel like they need the support not to offend the most from getting it. It is as backwards and counterproductive as it could possibly be.
The only way out of this situation is for the public — and over time the legislators — to really understand pedophilia. Refusing to discuss the topic, shoving it under the rug, does nothing to prevent child sexual abuse. The only way forward is to destigmatize the condition of being attracted to children—but never the action of having sex with children — and allow pedophiles to freely, and without fear, seek the help that they so much desire us to get. And that’s why I’m here, doing what I do. In hopes that one day people will not equate pedophile with monster or ticking time bomb, and those of us who feel like we need access to mental health support, either to build that self-confidence in our ability to never harm a child or simply to learn to accept ourselves as decent human beings whose attractions don’t make us evil, can do so without fear. Perhaps that day we will also be able to confide in our closest relatives and friends, because knowing that people accept you for who you are, without you having to hide such an important part of yourself is also incredibly valuable and works wonders in improving you self-esteem and, with it, your self-confidence.
You can help
In summary, I would say that indeed yes, pedophiles need help, just probably not the kind of help you would assume, or for the reasons you may think. And the great thing is that you can actually help.
And you don’t have to be an expert to be able to help. Here are some very simple things you can do:
Care about your fellow human being who did not choose to feel what he feels and only wishes to live his life peacefully without causing anyone harm.
Consider that perhaps you don’t know all the facts about pedophilia and child sexual abuse. That maybe what you’ve been told to be true, what you’ve read in the media or heard in the news, isn’t exactly the way it is portrayed.
Realize that perhaps it is worth listening to the perspective of a pedophile who is committed to never harming a child, that we actually deserve to have our voices heard.
Understand that pedophile and child molester are not one and the same, and that the former doesn’t automatically lead to the latter.
Challenge yourself, your prejudices and those of the people you encounter perpetuating the stigma of pedophilia, and contributing to the status quothat is preventing those you so much desire to “get help” from doing so.
By doing these simple things you will be helping pedophiles live happier and more fulfilling lives, confident that they will never act on their attractions. And by doing that you will be helping to reduce child sexual abuse, and I can’t think of a more important reason for you to realize that it is in your hand to make a change. While it is true that pedophiles account for a minority of sexual offenders against children, a single child spared from abuse is already a victory. Wouldn’t you agree?
I saw an intriguing article this morning in my news feed: A theory that talking about masculinity can prevent crimes. Specifically, rape and mass shootings. I would posit that this theory can also apply to child sexual abuse. First, we need to look at what masculinity teaches.
Masculinity: What is it?
Masculinity is a difficult thing for me to discuss, primarily because of my asperger's. However, my asperger's also gives me the opportunity to sit somewhat apart from my male peers and judge them somewhat from a distance. To me, masculinity is the social value that society places on various things that all add up to being on some imaginary spectrum of 'manhood'. At the one end, you have your 'sissies', the people who are not very manly at all, even if they are, well, men. At the other, you have your manly men (no, not men in tights) who are macho and, well, real men. So what exactly differentiates the sissies from the manly men? Here is a convenient list of beliefs and traits I have observed:
Real men do not cry
Real men do not show emotion
Real men are secure in their manhood
Real men like women, a lot
Real men can pick up chicks
Real men work hard
Real men never complain
Real men love sports
Real men know most of the players on their favorite sports teams teams by heart
Real men can pick a fight with another man... and win
Real men are better than you
Real men have children that are great at sports
Real men have lots of buddies to hang out with
Real men can hold their alcohol
Real men have a decent amount of money
Real men have a nice car, a nice house, and a nice woman
Real men have these nice things because they have fought for them by working hard
Real men do not cry about bullies, they show the bully who is boss
Real men drive pickup trucks and muscle cars
While not a complete list, this might give you an idea of what it means to be a man. There are implied things, like a real man is not gay, a real man does not talk about their emotions, and a real man does not take flak from people. But it is a good list.
Connecting the dots
Is it possible that these expectations fuel sex crimes as well as crude, rude, or violent behavior? I am sure you can imagine what I mean by crude: There are plenty of examples, like the boss with the hot secretary that he hits on all the time, the woman in the lunch room that is the center of attention in a room full of men, the pick-up lines, catcalls, and quest to have sex with women... And rude? A real man is entitled to what he has and what he wants and will just take it if he needs to, including that spot in line, that parking space... And violence needs no other example than football and hockey! Only men could come up with the idea that sports that seem to focus on a puck or a ball, but are really about beating up or knocking down other men to get to said objects.
So, what happens when a man does not live up to these expectations? What happens when they fall more on the sissy end than the manly end? What happens when these manly attitudes result in homophobic, sexist, or abusive jokes? More often than not, they are not respected. They are not treated as men. They are bullied or harassed. They might be subjected to emotional or physical abuse. They can be hazed. There are plenty of examples to have the unspoken assumption that if you are seen as being on the sissy end, you risk all of these things and more. You have no status if you do not make the cut.
Desperation
Putting all of these unrealistic expectations on a man, and you have a recipe for someone who is desperate to be seen as acceptable so that he can belong as a man. Social status is the biggest weapon of masculinity, and without it, the sissies are nothing. So they will do whatever they think will win them back the status that they need in order to be that manly man, the macho guy. Sometimes, that results in sexist jokes to win back some social status. Maybe it is not just a joke, maybe it is a pick-up line they use to get a woman so they can brag about how they really can get a chick. Maybe the pick-up line failed, so maybe it is bullying someone who is more of a sissy than they are. Maybe they do not know anyone who is more of a sissy, so they stalk a woman. Maybe it is not just stalking, maybe they rape her. Maybe it is not a woman, maybe it is a child. A child cannot really fight back, so why not?
The bottom line
By now I think I have made my point quite clear: This ideal of a manly man does not exist. It is a figment of the social imagination, a goal to strive for that is unattainable. That is why we have superhero movies: It takes someone that is far more than just an ordinary human to attain what is truly masculine. But this ideal causes real damage. You see, that list I gave? It is not just a list of things that make a man a real man. It becomes a list of beliefs. "A real man is *insert belief*. I am not, so I must..." Those beliefs lead to what psychologists call cognitive dissonance: A difference in what is really the case, and what should be the case. It is a difference in expectation.
There are two ways to solve cognitive dissonance: Change the reality, or change the expectation. It is easier to come up with ways to change the reality, but it is much harder to change the expectation. However, changing the expectation so that it is realistic is something that is far more controllable than how much money someone makes, what their level of attraction is to women, the ability to get a girlfriend, or the ability to be interested in sports and hotrods. And that is an extremely odd tie-in, because if you have read my posts about treatment... you will realize that I essentially just made the case that masculinity can cause the very beliefs that lead someone to commit a sexual offense.
One of the beliefs I had to change was entirely related to my emotions. I swallowed the beliefs about not feeling, not crying, and not addressing how I feel. I decided not to feel. That played an important role in my ability to take care of myself and fed into my decisions to abuse a child.
Conclusion
I am a sissy. I was before I offended, I was growing up, and in many ways I still am. Only now? I do not care, because some arbitrary set of cultural expectations about what is or is not masculine does not get to dictate how I live my life. I have that power and that control, not this list, this farce over what a man is and is not. To answer the question this post poses: Absolutely. Masculinity and expected gender roles and norms absolutely play a role in sex crime. A cornered animal will do anything to defend itself. If you socially corner someone into a box where they have no status and no hope, there is no telling what they will do to attempt to break free from that box.
SORNA, the acronym for the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (a catch-all term used to describe the multiple laws that created and expanded registration, and created community notification), is a topic of much contention. Many people discuss it with varying perspectives. I often, when I comment on news articles to inform people of the facts surrounding these issues, discuss recidivism rates of sex offenders and the proportion of new sex offenses committed by first-time offenders to those on the registry. That information is also linked at the side of this blog. But why is it important?
Recidivism: What is it, what does it mean, and why is it important?
Recidivism, which is the criminal justice term for re-offending, is a device that typically refers to someone who has previously been arrested for a crime being arrested again for another crime. It does not usually refer to a reconviction, but a rearrest. As such, it is not a completely accurate measurement because it would ballpark a slightly higher number. After all, some who are arrested are not convicted. On the topic of sexual offenses, its typical inaccuracy should theoretically be compensated for because of underreporting.
There are obvious flaws to using recidivism data to accurately state how many criminals are arrested for a new crime- underreporting and the fact that the data only studies rearrests, for example. However, it is likely to be the most accurate tool for the purpose that it serves, which is to get a general understanding of how often criminals engage in further delinquency. It serves as an important tool to measure whether or not people convicted of certain crimes repeat those certain crimes, other crimes, so that corrections departments can respond accordingly.
There are a variety of studies that have been done on sex offender recidivism. The metastudy linked on the side of this blog found a sexual recidivism rate of 13%, while other meta-analyses have found 11.5%. The United States Justice Department found a 5% recidivism rate in 2002 and a 13% recidivism rate in 2012. Who commits crimes? Why is that important?
SORNA is essentially based on the idea that sex offenders generally do commit further sex crimes, and that those arrested for new sex crimes are registered sex offenders. The original concept of sex offender registration was that by making law enforcement aware of who sex offenders are, they have tools to investigate other sex crimes, while the concept behind notification (registration is only visible to law enforcement while notification is visible to the public) is that the public can protect themselves against sex offenders by knowing who they are.
Thus, it is vitally important to the effectiveness of SORNA to know who commits new sex crimes. Are they in fact sex offenders? No. One study from New York tells us that 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. In criminal justice, a first-time offender is someone new to the criminal justice system. So their finding means that 5% of registered sex offenders commit new sex crimes. Connection: What do those numbers mean for SORNA?
If 86% of sex offenders do not repeat their crimes, and 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders, then it means that SORNA's effectiveness is extremely limited to affecting a much smaller portion of sex offenders. If Karl Hanson's meta-analyses on the subject are to be believed, and their studies firmly establish that they do know what they are doing, then we have reliable and accurate risk-assessment tools to know when a sex offender is at high risk for reoffending, and when they are not. However, SORNA on the federal level does not require the use of these assessments and treats every sex offender equally, as if they are all high-risk.
Obviously, this is a problem because it means tax money is being spent to monitor every single sex offender, when it is certain sex offenders who are in actual need of being monitored. It also means that the focus is on the wrong group of people: If 95% of new offenses are by new criminals, then the focus should not be on those who have committed sex offenses, but on those who are at risk of doing so. The focus, according to the raw numbers, should be on primary prevention and ensuring that those at risk do not commit a sexual crime.
The reason I use the 13% statistic and not the more-reliable 11.5% statistic is that recidivism rates, given underreporting, are low. Obviously, the bigger the sample pool, the more reliable the statistic because the more the sample represents the group of people it is sampling from. Some have accused me of using biased data: I would venture a guess that recidivism rates on this subject are indeed higher than those found in studies. However, short of every victim reporting it every single time, which is unrealistic for many reasons, they are the best data that is available.
