If the OP mentions a reference to South Park, one has to wonder how much real research was done.
Yes, but just to clear thing up, here is a link that The Punkyova posted in Good Pope/Bad Pope. It discusses the gender breakdown of victims of priests, and concludes that more girls have been abused then boys.
No it’s not-NAMBLA really does exist. I’m not looking up the URL (not for love or money!), but it’s real enough. They were around long before South Park.
Questions that occur to me while reading the thread:
How do studies about pedophilia & sexual abuse classify situations in which teenagers abuse pre-pubescent children? Do such abusers generally want a relationship with the child (as Guin mentioned) or do such cases tend more towards domination/violence/harm and what we would consider “rape”?
I ask because this discussion reminds me of a now-deceased friend. When perhaps 7 or 8 years old, he had been sexually molested by his older teen-age brother and the brother’s friend, and from what he described it didn’t sound like the two older boys were much interested in his welfare or even convincing themselves it was somehow consensual.
In terms of the effect on the child who has suffered the abuse – whether “rape” or “seduction” or other classification – does it much matter what the abuser’s intentions were? That is, are children who have actually been “raped” affected differently than those who have endured less violent forms of “manipulation”?
Lastly: my aforesaid friend could never quite shake the notion that his childhood abuse had “made” him gay – because once he began to come to grips with the abuse (which he did not do until his late 20s) he viewed his adult sexual behavior with men as an “acting out” of the abuse. That is, he felt that the abuse, and his consequential need to act it out, had overshadowed his own inborn sexual orientation – whatever it had been. Now, I don’t think the abuse made him gay; and I also think he wasn’t bothered so much by being gay per se, but rather by “not knowing” who he might have been without the abuse. He thought the abuse had altered his inborn identity in some indelible way.
With that said, I wonder whether anyone can comment on how childhood sexual abuse (addressed or suppressed) affects/interacts with the development of that child’s inherent sexuality as s/he grows to adolesence and adulthood. Was my friend’s experience a common phenomenon, or an unusual case?
Despite your misleading thread title, I think you understand that there is no such thing as a gay pedophile. Being homosexual and being a pedophile are mutually exclusive groups. Certainly there are male pedophiles who prey on boys, but these are not homosexual pedophiles anymore than pedophiles who prey on girls are heterosexual. Here is an excellent article about some of these issues.
There is also this: In one study, 98% of males who raped boys reported that they were heterosexual. [Sexual Abuse of Boys, Journal of the American Medical Association, December 2, 1998].
You also have to consider that pedophiles may offend over age and gender lines (i/e have victims of both genders and with a multitude of age).
Now, if your question is simply one of “are boys victimized more often than girls by male sexual offenders?”, I believe the answer is no.
Putting aside the drastic minority of sexual offenders who are women (which, I understand will slightly skew the results), these statistics indicate that there are more female victims of sexual abuse as children as there are male victims. Which would indicate that male sexual offenders are more likely to prey on girls than boys.
How reliable is a self reported sexual orientation under these circumstances, given the consequences of declaring that your sexual orientation is toward juvenile males?
Actually, recent studies have shown that only 10% of sex offenders were victims themselves. I was surprised my self when my husband learned this from the Director of Sex Offender programs form the State of Ohio at a recent International Association of Reentry conference.
Actually, recent studies have shown that only 10% of sex offenders were victims themselves. I was surprised myself when my husband learned this from the Director of Sex Offender programs from the State of Ohio at a recent International Association of Reentry conference.
It does matter whether the encounter was consensual or nonconsensual–“wanted” or “unwanted”, to use terms with no legal baggage–is that what you’re asking?
Studies have shown that generally, youths who are subject to only unwanted sexual encounters with adults are negatively affected into the future, but youths who are subject to only wanted encounters, or both wanted and unwanted, are not. (Cite upon request. I really should have it bookmarked by now, after all these threads…)
Judging from how accurately Dr. Drew Pinsky can tell when the callers to his show were abused in the past, I’d say it definitely has lasting effects. His theory (and I have no idea how widespread it is among the larger medical community) is that causes of childhood trauma become sources of attraction in adulthood.
Thats interesting, I always heard the opposite. When they said ‘sex offenders’ did they specifically mean child molesters who attacked victims of the same sex (the stereotypical man molesting a boy) or did they mean all sex offenders including rapists, those guilty of groping, etc?
http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/molester.htm#endnotes
That website says 57%.
No, not really. Since I’m asking about sexual “encounters” involving a pre-pubescent child, I am assuming (rightly or wrongly) that such a child is incapable of “consenting to” or “wanting” the encounter in any real way, regardless of how it might appear. Given that the victim suffered “unwanted” sexual abuse as a child, my question is: how do these unwanted encounters affect (or interact with, interfere with, inhibit, redirect) the development of sexual identity in the teen/adult person?
So this doesn’t really answer my question:
… because I already understand that unwanted encounters will have a negative effect. But this comes closer:
… because it fits with my friend’s observations of himself. This helps me frame my original question more specifically: how closely do those “sources of attraction in adulthood” match the original circumstances of the abuse i.e. which parameters does the adult-victim most often seek to re-create? The person (gender, age, etc.) of the abuser? The technique (violent or otherwise) of the abuse? The “power-over” relationship? For instance, my friend saw himself as having re-created the childhood encounters in both the person (another male) and the power-over relationship (with himself in the dominant position).
Now, my questions rest on the assumption “young child = non-consent = unwanted encounter” which may be a debatable point, as the intentions of the abuser towards the victim seem to have some bearing on the definitions of “consensual/non-rape” and “non-consensual/rape”:
Since I am not especially well-read on this subject, I do not wish to challenge Guin’s undoubtedly better-informed statements. But I think it is clear I am with ivylass on this: from the perspective of a non-consenting victim, the encounter is about the abuser’s exercise of power over (not his intentions towards) the victim, and is therefore “rape”.
When an adult woman says “no” and the abuser presses on anyway, doesn’t her perception alone define that encounter as non-consensual, and therefore about his power over her, and therefore as rape? Likewise, if we accept that a pre-pubescent child is incapable of saying “yes” in any meaningful (adult) way, then isn’t a child is always saying “no”, and therefore a victim of rape? Furthermore, because a child-victim is incapable of saying “yes”, how can such an encounter not be about power-over, even if that is not the abuser’s conscious intention? Might not the abuser’s belief that the child wanted it, that he means the child no harm, etc. be a means of denying and/or justifying his own unspoken need for power over a weaker person, or at least his need for a powerless target?
Or am I overlooking something crucial in my assumptions and questions? I am willing to be enlightened. 
I guess I’ll be the one. Cite?
That’s the principle behind laws that outlaw sex between teens or children and adults.
But whether we should accept that is a matter for debate. The studies I mentioned (link) have no problem with the idea that young people can know whether or not they want something. A child can decide whether or not he wants to engage in intimate physical acts just like he can decide whether or not he wants to eat ice cream for dinner or do his homework; even if he doesn’t understand every aspect of sex, nutrition, or academic planning, it would be inappropriate to say that he doesn’t really want what he says he wants.
The principle that seems to follow from these results is that what matters is whether the young participant is comfortable with the act at the time, not whether he is consenting in a “meaningful adult way”.
What the encounter is “about” depends on the observer. From the perspective of a victim who does not consent, the encounter is about power; from the perspective of a perpetrator who believes the victim has consented, it is not.
See the link in my previous post, and also this one: The RBT Files.
Here I mean “negative” in the sense of interfering with/affecting in any way the otherwise natural sexual development of the individual which would have occurred without the childhood sexual encounters.
Within the narrow range of my questions, I don’t mean “negative” in a strictly self-attributive sense i.e. only according to whether the teen/adult perceives the childhood encounters as having been traumatic or detrimental to him/her (though my use of “negative” certainly allows for this).
Jerevan Somerville, it sounds like you are trying to separate the question of whether a consensual sexual act harms people, from a personally cases into a general physiological question. Such an question seems meaningless. According to common belief, the minute an 18 year old has consensual sex with a 16 yea old, the 16 year old’s mind is permanently blastified.
<plugging a good book> If you really want to know how such things go in reality, in consensual situations, read what former Surgeon General of the United States of America Joycelyn Elders and current author Judith Levine say about the subject in Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex </plugging a good book>
Hmmm… I do see your point. But it seems to me that choices like ice cream, homework, bedtime, etc. are different in kind, not just degree, from a choice about sexual intimacy – mainly because, by virtue of being pre-pubescent, such a child isn’t capable of understanding any aspect of sexual intimacy in a way which allows a meaningful choice on the subject. Whereas such a child can have a personal/subjective understanding of ice cream, homework and bedtime which allows for a meaningful (if unhealthy) choice. So I do in fact think that, at least in this arena, it is appropriate to say that a child cannot know what he does/does not want (to phrase it your way) or to say that a child is incapable of making a meaningful choice (to phrase it my way).
Understood. That being the case – a sad state of legal affairs, I might add – how (or more to the point, why) do we as a culture seek to protect pre-pubscent children from sexual encounters, and discourage adults from pursuing them? I submit that it is because we know, intuitively if not logically or legally, that young children are incapable of consenting to such encounters.
And I think scott_plaid kinda just helped make this point – though it depends on the exact definition of “blastified”.
Also understood, but I did mean it in the former sense (the perspective around which my questions & comments revolve).
To scott_plaid: Sorry, I don’t quite follow what you mean by this: “it sounds like you are trying to separate the question of whether a consensual sexual act harms people, from a personally cases [???] into a general physiological question.”
Mr 2001 would it be fair to say that the the Rind report and Levine’s book are far from widely accepted? Wouldn’t it be more proper to say that those two, and most of the other stuff you linked to, have been resoundedly attacked, not only on policy grounds, but also on scientific grounds by numerous different groups including the Leadership council and the Psychological Bulletin, which originally published the Rind report.
Would it be fair to say that the APA stated: "those who are reporting that the [Rind] study says that childhood sexual contact with adults is not harmful to children are misreporting the findings."
Would it be fair to say that it has been attacked: "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings."
Would it be fair to say that your statement: “youths who are subject to only unwanted sexual encounters with adults are negatively affected into the future, but youths who are subject to only wanted encounters, or both wanted and unwanted, are not” is, in the words of the APA, a misreporting of the study.
Would it be fair to quote the APA saying **“The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims.” **
and
"No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children."
and
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."
Would it be fair to say you’re wrong.
The reason I’m saying is that pedophiles are different from your typical rapists (meaning they usually rape adult women), is that most pedophiles seem to be severely deluded. They’ll think that the victim truly DID consent, that the kid seduced him, etc. So they’re not trying to “dominate and overpower”-even though they are. They’re not using sex as a weapon to harm. (Although SOME child molestors DO rape their victims in the conventional sense.)
Note-I am not an expert at all. I am only going by what I’ve read and what I’ve heard.
:smack:That should be something like:
That could be. It could also be that the witch hunters of Salem, Mass. where it is possible they were really killing real witches. After all, the culture of the time agreed that witches really existed. Now, I remembger the 80s, and I recall all the lives ruined by false reports of satanic ritual abuse. I do not want that to happen again. One way would be for all of America, including yourself, to read the book I recomended in my previous post.