Abuse/Pedophilia: Definitions? Reactions?

Great Debates
1

The subject is: that thing a lot of priests, and various others, are being accused of doing.

It is termed “child sexual abuse” or “pedophilia.” And I’m not at all sure what it is.

I’m a rather well-educated grownup with a Masters in Counseling --and I don’t know what it is. Because no one says exactly what these people were supposed to have done: not the newspapers, not the TV news, not anyone. Is it like sex in general when you’re 12: you’re just “supposed to know” without being told?

From what little info leaks out from behind the curtain, I gather the terms cover all sorts of things. Now–being delicate and respecting the SDMB–there are adult males practicing rear insertion on 4-year-olds; female babysitters fellating their 10-yr-old charges; priests fondling the private regions of teenage altar-boys; even pop celebs holding naked sleepovers with adoring pre-pubescent fans. I gather all these are verbotten. So are things like nude mutual washing, kissing the back of a kid’s neck, chucking your neice on the bottom in a kidding way, embracing a student in a classroom who has been upset and is in tears; etc.

My point is not to excuse or validate any of these activities, but rather to ask: in precisely what sense are they taken to be sexual or abusive? Some cases are obvious; some are not.

Are priests being turned into registered sex offenders because they kissed a 16-year-old 30 years ago? Was that regarded as improper or dangerous 30 years ago?

In what sense is kissing…or even nudity…a SEXUAL act? I always assumed a sexual act required penetration, or the “stimulative” touching of the genitals, or at least an obvious attempt to do the same. Yes, I know the law says otherwise; I’m not asking for a quote from the law books. I want to know how it has come to be that we no longer believe in such a thing as “innocent” physical contact between an adult and a minor. Does “Hugs Not Drugs” now mean, Hug Yourself?

What emotions, what reasoning, drives people to say that such acts are “worse than murder” and that killing even a suspected “perp” is morally justifiable? Bad touching is worse than MURDER? Or have I misunderstood–are they talking only about violent sexual assault?

And–since when are persons 13-17 deemed “children”?

I’m ready to be not only flamed but burnt at the stake…by those who do not bother to note that I am only asking for clarification and discussion, not advocating a “position.” And I ask those flamers: what EXACTLY enrages you?

2

Most children are much more impressionable and easily-led than almost any adult, plus they are not as likely to understand the implications of how something will play out; these are essentially vulnerabilities and paedophiles deliberately (IMHO) exploit them.

To me, attempting to engage in a sexual encounter with any person who does not or cannot properly understand where it is leading is the moral equivalent of, say, drugging someone and having sex with them while they are unconscious - if they were aware of what was going to happen, they might choose to say ‘no’.

3

I don’t think it’s that we no longer believe there’s such a thing as innocent physical contact- I haven’t heard about scores of parents making complaints about their children’s aunts and uncles hugging them and kissing them. I think it’s that we’re less likely to assume that the contact is innocent. When I was a child, if my teacher hugged me, my mother wouldn’t have thought twice about it, even if she didn’t know the teacher. Same thing if it was a softball coach or a priest. Not the same with my kids- I might not get upset if a teacher, coach or priest hugged one of my kids, or gave them a pat on the butt, but it would very much depend on me knowing the person well enough to believe it’s innocent, not just assuming it must be innocent.

4

I understand what you’re saying, Doreen.

But my question is: Just what IS a “non-innocent pat on the butt”?

It’s the same experience for the kid either way, isn’t it? Or am I wrong…?

5

I think you’re wrong, it’s not the same experience. As an adolescent I sometimes encountered adults who seemed to have shall we say an unusual interest in adolescent girls. Sometimes these adults never did anything clearly physically inappropriate, but it would still creep me out when Teacher X put his arm around my shoulders even though it might not have bothered me at all when Teacher Y did the same thing.

So no, I don’t think all pats on the bottom or whatever are created equal.

6

Physically, it’s the same pat on the butt. But as Lamia said, kids can sometimes get creeped out when certain people do it ( Lamia’s example happened to me. In high school, quite a few male teachers did the arm around the shoulder thing. Only one got me nervous. And he got every other girl nervous, too ) Even aside from that, there’s a big difference between a pat on the butt, or a hug that will remain a pat on the butt or a hug and one that’s a precursor to other things. . Kind of like gifts and outings- there are any number of people who I don’t mind my kids receiving gifts from or going out with. They’re all people I know well. I would be suspicious of a teacher who invited my child on an individual trip to a museum or gave my child gifts- not because the experience of going to the museum would be markedly different from going with me or on a class trip or getting the gift from the teacher would feel different to my child than getting it from me, but because I would have questions about where it was leading. And it’s not an unreasonable position to take, since few pedophiles ( or ephebophiles- those attracted to adolescents) are of the "grab the child off the playground " sort. They more often form a relationship with a child,buying gifts and spending time, making the child feel special, and then gradually intoduce sexual activity of some sort (which may well not involve the child’s genitals at all, but only the adult’s). I’m not at all saying that the teacher inviting the child on a trip can’t be innocent, or that the teacher should be sent to prison, but if I don’t personally know the teacher I have no more reason to think it’s innocent than a would if a total stranger invited the child on an outing. And I think I’ve just put my finger on the real difference between now and thirty years ago - my mother didn’t think twice because she believed she could trust a teacher,coach, or priest even if she didn’t know the teacher,coach or priest. She certainly would have had a problem if a total stranger walked up to me on the street and hugged me or kissed me.

7

I see. Thanks.

Can either of you, or anyone, identify what it is about certain people that make these things “feel creepy”? Maybe that the contact is just a little too prolonged, or a little too forceful…or something like, the person seems to make just a little too much effort to do it, as if looking for an excuse–?

And the thing about being concerned lest an innocent gesture be part of a seduction routine makes sense. After all, that IS how seduction, of an adult by an adult, “happens,” especially when the seducer is unable or unwilling to be too open about it.

Still looking for input on some other issues, like… Is this sort of “pat on the butt” familiarity part of what priests and others are getting sued for, as if it were considered abuse/molestation in and of itself? Or does it have to go further? How much further? (That is, where is the line crossed between “This guy isn’t right” and “I’m charging him with molestation”?) --asked because of such things as school teachers being afraid to hug a crying child for fear of a lawsuit.

Again: In what sense is it “sexual” without genital involvement? Obviously no parent wants the babysitter climbing in the tub with the 5-year-old-- but is that really “sexual molestation,” or something more like, um, indecent exposure or inappropriate attention? Maybe there IS no category for it. (Maybe the news media gets it wrong, reporting “molestation” as shorthand for various other violations…)

I’m thinking also of a film I saw about a gay relationship between a 29-year-old and a 15-year-old. No (overt) sex was shown, but there was some nudity and kissing, and I was told that this would be sufficient for a molestation charge. Is it because the teen could SEE the adult’s genitals? If they were naked but always back-to-back, does that make a difference? (I’m being absurd, but with a purpose.) If Mary, 35, is caught in the front seat of her love wagon kissing Umberto, 14, both fully clothed with no sign of genital “play”–what then?

And again: where does the rage come from? And why are teens, adults in so many contexts, lumped with pre-pubescent children when we talk about this stuff?

8

It often strikes me like we declare adolescent maturity to be a bald-man problem and then from that assert that the arbitrary age of 18 is good enough. From my own experiences growing up and from the sparse material I’ve read this doesn’t really seem to be the case.

I really think the information is sort of out there, in some respects, that would allow us to be more comprehensive in both our assertions regarding maturity and the declaration of sexual misconduct in these cases.

It is almost like we don’t want to look there, and so we paint the scene with the widest brush possible. I think the analysis regarding youths subjected to or engaging in sexual acts needs to be more comprehensive. But then, I also think that some things are self-fulfilling prophecies regarding sexual behavior, so I don’t even know what to say on the topic any more.

Whether or not we have had teachers do such things to us (and I have) as make us uncomfortable by simply putting an arm around you, it is the case that otherwise innocent acts can add or create an air of unease. But I feel we paint this picture with too wide of a brush.

9

Can’t really identify what made him seem “creepy”, any more than I can identify what makes me think a man is interested in more than a casual conversation when he talks to me - some men seem to just be having a conversation, and others seem to be interested in more.

First- In my state at least, there is no such crime as “molestation” There are various degrees of rape,sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and one level of “course of sexual conduct against a child”, all of which at a minimum involve the touching of the genitals or “intimate parts” of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification. Clearly, the babysitter bathing nude with the five year old is not covered here if there’s no touching. But it might be covered under “endangering the welfare of a child”, which includes mental and moral welfare as well as physical.

Molestation is used in a similar way to “child neglect” - it’s a very general term.Saying that someone is accused of molesting a child doesn’t tell you if the person is accused of a quick touch of the child’s clothed genitals or of a violent rape, just as saying that someone is accused of “child neglect” doesn’t tell you if they’re accused of not getting a child shots or starving a child to death.The stories I’ve seen that went into detail (although most didn’t) all involved genital contact over a period of time.

Regarding what priests are being sued for- I suppose someone could have complained to the bishop over a single, inappropriate pat on the butt, but given the Catholic hierarchy’s record of trying to outlast, outspend, and blame the victims and their families, I doubt that any lawyer would take a case where the only allegation was a pat on the butt. It simply didn’t have a good enough chance of winning for a lawyer to bother.

I don’t think teachers are afraid to hug a child for fear of getting sued. What would the damages be from a single hug? I think they’re more afraid of being fired for not following policy (which may have been put in place because of the district’s fear of being sued when someone does go on to actual sexual contact ) , a much more realistic fear.

10

Can’t really identify what made him seem “creepy”, any more than I can identify what makes me think a man is interested in more than a casual conversation when he talks to me - some men seem to just be having a conversation, and others seem to be interested in more.

First- In my state at least, there is no such crime as “molestation” There are various degrees of rape,sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and one level of “course of sexual conduct against a child”, all of which at a minimum involve the touching of the genitals or “intimate parts” of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification. Clearly, the babysitter bathing nude with the five year old is not covered here if there’s no touching. But it might be covered under “endangering the welfare of a child”, which includes mental and moral welfare as well as physical.

Molestation is used in a similar way to “child neglect” - it’s a very general term.Saying that someone is accused of molesting a child doesn’t tell you if the person is accused of a quick touch of the child’s clothed genitals or of a violent rape, just as saying that someone is accused of “child neglect” doesn’t tell you if they’re accused of not getting a child shots or starving a child to death.The stories I’ve seen that went into detail (although most didn’t) all involved genital contact over a period of time.

Regarding what priests are being sued for- I suppose someone could have complained to the bishop over a single, inappropriate pat on the butt, but given the Catholic hierarchy’s record of trying to outlast, outspend, and blame the victims and their families, I doubt that any lawyer would take a case where the only allegation was a pat on the butt. It simply didn’t have a good enough chance of winning for a lawyer to bother.

I don’t think teachers are afraid to hug a child for fear of getting sued. What would the damages be from a single hug? I think they’re more afraid of being fired for not following policy (which may have been put in place because of the district’s fear of being sued when someone does go on to actual sexual contact ) , a much more realistic fear.

11

I agree entirely. If we can say that [some group] is incapable of consenting to sex, there must be some criteria for determining whether someone is capable. Otherwise the phrase “incapable of consenting to sex” is meaningless, and we may as well say [some group] is zxcvbnm.

My question is, if these criteria can be applied to an entire age group, why can’t they be applied to individuals?

Certainly some acts between adults and minors are abusive, as are some acts between adults and adults, or between minors and minors. An arbitrary age lets us categorize acts as “abusive” or “not abusive”, but if that categorization doesn’t reflect reality, we may as well just throw dice.

12

Hmm. Imagine there were such a test that was, say, somehow 99.99% accurate. Don’t ask me how we would determine that. But, for the hypothetical, let’s play. Now, we have here a test which will determine whether a person is able to meaningfully consent (another sort of magically meaningless term when viewed from the context of our current legal system). Could we say that a person could opt to take this test without parental notification, and if they passed they got a “sex card” or something similar (if they were under 18, say, and we still assumed that over 18 was ok no matter what) and no one could be considered to have molested this preson unless they could be considered to have molested any person? That is, in matters of sex, this person is on par with an adult.

Now: would men looking for younger women ask to see these cards before attempting anything? Well, if the answer was affirmative, why don’t they simply ask to see licenses now and stick with the law?

But, as interesting as that may or may not be to anyone reading it, I think we should start with the notion that children do have a sexuality, and that sexuality can be exploited. Which, of course, is sort of obvious: anyone with a sense of sexuality can be exploited. So, yeah, we should reasses why this group somehow is always exploited, because it just doesn’t seem obvious.

If we say that 18 is somehow arbitrary but good enough, that means that “somehow” a person has learned enough about social interaction by this time to deal with sex. Well, how would we know the opposite? I mean, let us imagine that, since this age is arbitrary, that there are 19 year olds that, even though legal, are not equipped to deal with sex. What would these persons be like? How would we test for incompetence here?

Which isn’t to slight cases of molestation. No way I’m trying to blame the victim or anything here. But I think it is that our legal system is damned archaic in its representation of what sexual maturity is. It isn’t even pretending to understand the issue wrt young adults. Until we can understand, legally, sexual maturity from an emotional standpoint, we can never quite have a real handle on sexual molestation, since molestation sort of requires a lack of consent, and in the case of young adults it is simply automatically assumed that they cannot consent to sex. Which, again, seems as silly to me now as it did when I was some young age.

For all the questions Scott has asked I do seem to have focused on one particlar one. Apologies, but it is my own little imaginary crusade.

13

Erislover, Old Bean, I forgive you all I’ve got.

Some thoughts…

  1. Does homophobia have a lot more to do with some of the details of our reactions than we are willing to admit? Though statistics say otherwise, the news seems to focus on men going after male minors–as if the main issue were the “perversion” of our youth–a myth still all-too-widely believed.

  2. Is part of it that parents have to deal with some powerful emotions when an outsider seems to be competing with them for control of their offspring? Surely a natural reaction. But if that’s the reason, the significance of the sexual element is mainly that it functions as a powerful “lever,” giving the competitor an unfair advantage.

  3. The “when is a child a child” question is not just a bald-man question, but a “when is a pile a heap” question. Tiny age increments (a minute, a day, a month) obviously do not convert a child into an adult; yet somehow, when we look away and then look back, the accumulation of such increments has worked magic. This suggests to me that childhood and adulthood are vague terms with diffuse and interpenetrating boundaries; we know where the centers are, but not the lines of demarcation. In such cases, isn’t the answer a three-category system–definitely a child, definitely an adult, and not definitely either?

  4. Your mid-teenage son or daughter comes home and says, “I’ve fallen in love with Mr. Jones and he says he’s in love with me, and we spent last Saturday making out in his van by the lake.” What course of action seems best to you, in terms of your parental responsibilities? Everyone talks about stopping the criminal violation; but is it valid to consider whether “going nuclear”–and public–is really in the best interests of your kid? Would you turn your kid into the FBI if you found him smoking dope? Would you protect him but turn in his buddies? How about heavier stuff–but a first offense, born of an “experimenting phase” natural to the young? My point: sometimes one’s protective duties do not coincide with the letter of the law.

I note that I seem to be coming across as if our standard laws and reactions are “bad.” I’m not sure they are. I just find the rationales unclear–and a whole lot of squeamishness.

14

  1. Now that is an interesting thought on which, some might be thankful, I have no immediate comment. However, I do hope someone takes that and runs with it.

  2. …

  3. At least a 3-category system. And “when is a pile a heap”: :smiley:

  4. Seems appropriate to investigate why crimes involving sexuality (which is not to explicitly reference the very real class of existing sex-crimes) are so much more serious… and my own pet theory about self-fulfilling prophecies is here.

And finally, in some cases there is no rationale, in others it seems a rationalization, but overall it is still clear we need some laws here. But, in rereading the OP, I am also surprised that the exact allegations haven’t made it to my ears, either (I had just assumed I missed them as I don’t often watch the news). Clearly in the current scandal-set the vocal accusers are all adults, and the media usually releases such allegations to the public whether it involves adults or not (only in the case of children, of course, we don’t often get names).

15

I think many people do seem to regard male-on-male child molestation as far more serious and wrong than male-on-female. I didn’t follow the NAMBLA thread here in GD for too long, but during the time that I was reading it I didn’t see any of the same arguments made in defense of adult attraction to adolescents that has come up in threads about men and girls. Nothing like “Well, if a 13 year old boy LOOKS 18…” or “The way these boys dress today, with their pants hanging off their butts, obviously they want sexual attention!” Yet when the subject is adolescent girls, I’ve seen everything short of “The little whores are askin’ for it!”

It seems to me that society is all to willing to wink at “dirty old men” as long as they stick to girls.

16

People are going to joke about things that make them uncomfortable; and given how society feels and reacts towards this issue, people are uncomfortable with being attracted to who they can’t have. I personally haven’t noticed nearly the imbalance of attitude that Lamia has noted between male/male and male/female cases, but that might possibly have something to do with the difference in gender between the two of us. I’d be willing to bet there’s plenty of that “They’re askin’ for it” attitude to go around all gender combinations, whether we’re tuned into it or not.

To address Scott’s question number 1 above (if I’m understanding it correctly): if there is more of a social backlash against male/male incidents (as Lamia perceives), I wouldn’t be at all surprised if homophobia played a part in that. Like it or not, to many people homosexuality is just as much a disgusting abomination as pedophila, and when you combine the two, it compounds the outrage.

I think the main motivating factor behind all the furor is protection, and is well-intended. Still, as I’ve opined before on this board, when we get into this much of a froth over something, we stand in danger of our protectiveness getting out of hand and becoming part of the problem rather than the solution. If our commitment to the well-being of our children is as true and complete as it should be, we cannot affort to let ourselves be overtaken by blind zealotry, however well-intended we might be.

Speaking oh-so-sagely from the standpoint of having no children (and fully recognizing the possibility that I might feel very differently if I had them), I think my best course of action would be the same, regardless of whether Mr. Jones is my child’s contemporary or my father’s: make damned sure my child isn’t being harmed and is happy and safe. Respect their (my child’s) feelings, and resist the temptation to convince them that they don’t know what love is at their age. I’ve no doubt that they know what love at their age is, if you see the difference, and that is what counts for them right now. They can have a more mature understanding of love when they are more mature, just like the rest of us. If I was convinced that she was happy and safe and wasn’t being harmed by Mr. Jones, then it wouldn’t matter to me what age he was. If they are being harmed by him, then it STILL wouldn’t matter what age he was.

I was browsing through the bookstore last week, and picked up a book which relates directly to this topic: Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine. I’m only about a third of the way through it, but it’s remarkably free of the blind, spittle-spraying hatred that so often seems part and parcel of so many people’s point of view in these discussions.

17

But Lamia, I have mistaken young girls for older girls, but not young boys for older boys. Is this a function of how they reach physical maturity?

Rest assured my shyness prevents me from even talking to women my own age, nevermind one that I perceive as younger (though, given misinterpretations of visual signals, still legal).

18

Thanks, Lamia and Dijon.

But spittle-sprayers, I KNOW you’re out there. I’m not inviting you to come in and be flamed. I’d like to hear FROM you as to where the anger and/or fear is coming from. What are you thinking of when you hear references to “pedophilia”? What leads some of you to say, “I’d murder the SOB, law or no law!”?

Inasmuch as one’s reaction to a 50-year-old man tying up and rectally abusing a 6-year-old boy evokes reactions the probably need to explanation, let’s use as an example the one from the film I mentioned–29-year-old man with 15-year-old boy, every appearance of “consent” (not legal consent, obviously). What in this situation arouses fury or seems especially disturbing?

19

That’s one of the same questions that has always baffled me about this, as well. People seem hellbent on treating every instance of such a relationship as a beyond-worst-case scenario, regardless of the circumstances of said relationship. I’ve yet to get to the bottom of what motivates this. Then again, I’ve yet to get to the bottom of what causes Fred Phelps & Co. to so virulently abhor gays, or what causes the Klan, et al. to despise blacks so thoroughly. It all sounds very similar to me.

The tenet seems to be that it is the very age in and of itself which causes the situation to be universally abusive and harmful, which doesn’t make very much sense to me. In other words, you can have two people in a loving relationship which is a positive and fulfilling experience for both of them, and no harm is done. Make one member of that relationship a child (and make no other changes than that), and instantly that same relationship becomes too evil for words. For some reason.

Can such relationships be abusive and harmful to the child? Of course they can, and I’ve not seen anyone claim otherwiwse. Are they universally and unavoidably harmful by definition? That seems to be the widely held belief, but I’ve yet to find a reason why it would be (harmful, that is; not widely held). Aside from social prejudice, I’ve found no factor common to all such relationships that would be responsible for such devastation (and believe me, I’ve tried).

As I’ve said before, I think a good portion of it is protective in motivation. Children are vulnerable, and need to be kept safe; no one is arguing that. But the virulence and blind hatred directed towards this topic (and people thusly configured) goes way beyond rational protection, IMO. It smacks of something deeper and darker, partly because in our zealotry to shield kids from such monstrosities, their very well-being (which we are supposed to be watching out for) often gets sacrificed in the process. That’s a big red flag to me that there’s something wrong with our perspective on this issue. Our attitude towards this subject frequently carries a very similar stench to homophobia or racism, neither of which have ever yielded good public policy.

20

Scott: your example of the 50 year old and 6 year old disturbs me whether the recipient was 6 or 56.

A crime, to me, doesn’t become worse or less worse (ain’t saying “better”!) by virtue of who it was done to. and in the second case you mention, of course the only reason it was a crime was because of who it was done to.

It is the impossibility of youth to make meaningful choices which I don’t understand, or why they can make some choices but not this one. To my mind, a person can have sex and enjoy it sooner than they can drive a car or have a credit card. And I don’t base this issue on responsibility or I wouldn’t have brought up the credit cards (which adults seem to have a hard time with all on their own).

I am willing to accept an argument that children can’t consent. That argument cannot include the assertion that children cannot consent. If we say it is because they can’t understand, I would question how we could test their understanding (and if you can’t, then who says they can’t understand?!). If we say it is becasue they would be irresponsible, then I question why we don’t impose restrictions on parenting in general.

And so on.

Most people here reference their own children and hypothesize based on the level of devotion and willingness to act on this devotion. Of course, like Dijon, I find this sort of talk reprehensible. It is impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions (7 ;)) but that doesn’t strike me as a highly motivating reason to allow this sort of emotion to be a basis for legality.

Now, of course, there are posters here who have in the past attempted to demonstrate through psychological studies (well, through references to these studies, not that the posters conducted these studies themselves) that deep emoitnal harm or irrevocable emotional harm was done to children that adults seem to generally be able to work through instead of being scarred. That is cause for concern, but not a declaration of murder. IMO.