Maybe the wife had been reading Richard Dawkins?:

“All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defence, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).” (The God Delusion, p 316.)

Hi Julian,

Haven’t listened to the broadcast as yet, but just a quick question - would you find it as troubling if instead of inappropriately touching his daughter because he found her sexually attractive, he gave her a fat lip because he was suffering from a schizophrenic delusion? If his wife accepted him back after treatment would that still be odd?

Cheers.

I can understand forgiveness for many things, but pedophilia is not one of them. As with all pedophiles, I have one, very simple, reaction: hang him by the you-know-whats, and don’t bother with the bit about taking him down once his sentence is finished. Once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator.

“Mom” might be forgiving, but society isn’t. I read of many cases where an accused Minister (or other church worker) is “supported” by their congregation. The predator gets the sympathy, the victim is ignored. (Really!) I recently had a discussion that allegedly included the members of a Lubbock, Texas, Baptist Church about an accused pedophile in their ranks. Even when challenged about the victim, the standard line was “Brother —- is a decent Christian”. Little to no mention of the crimes he’s accused of, no mention of the victim (I don’t recall a single congregant standing up for the victim), and so on. Just the point that the guy was a decent Christian.

The reason I mention this is to point out that pedophiles are very capable of generating sympathy for themselves. They are expert liars. It’s a heck of a lot easier to say “he couldn’t have” rather than face up to the consequences and do the right thing - they’ll protest their innocence, and they’ll feign being hurt and confused, etc about the whole thing, and so on.

Recent legislation in many US States has made sexual crimes of this sort earn that never-ending punishment. Registration lists, severe restrictions on behavior, in some cases the predator isn’t even released from prison and so on; all of it sounds good to me. Even when accused, there’s a different standard of privacy: Texas, for instance, bars the accused from being around children.

The pedophile and rapist are different to other criminals. While many criminals make no effort to rehabilitate, the sexual ones simply can’t. Recidivism among sexual predators is fairly high; I don’t have the numbers, but I do understand it’s almost certain they’ll commit their crimes, again. They have a choice on whether to act on their despicable fantasies, but once they do: society can, will and should punish them without end.

The mother and the child are not thinking clearly; they want it all to “go away”, put it behind them and they’ve both developed a mechanism for that. While I can’t speak for them, I know many victims build, in their minds, big oak doors, with lots of heavy iron hinges, straps, bolts and locks. What they tend to neglect is the building of a wall to accommodate the door.

The mother and child aren’t thinking rationally; they just want the whole thing to not have happened. No victim of such a crime ever does think rationally; the fear and horror are simply too great. By reverting to some pre-event dynamic, they hope it won’t happen again. It might not to the girl, but that thing, that predator, still poses a danger to other children. Mom and child will even pretend to trust him. But that would be a huge mistake; it’s impossible to trust someone capable of lying and manipulating to that degree.

They should go parachuting with him. And forget to pack his parachute.

Carolyn Ann

May I suggest that it’s rational for the wife take the man back now that the daughter isn’t a child anymore?

A tough one and unfortunately I haven’t heard the original interview or your comments.

I think a number of questions need to be distinguished here, e.g. (a) was she acting in the best interests of the daughter (b) how can she possibly remain married to this man (c) more generally, is it possible/right to forgive paedophiles.

For (a) maybe she was sensible in asking the daughter what she wanted, although what an 8 year old wants and what’s good for him/her may not be the same. I would seek outside help although of course here that brings further consequences. One point here, I read a newspaper report on reoffence rates for paedophiles a while ago and as I recall they’re pretty low - lower than for other crimes. Sorry I don’t have a reference for that.

As to (b) the reasons people get and remain married are many and weird. Let’s not go there.

And for (c), paedophilia is a selfish and evil act, but I see no reason why any standard of ethical justice or religious mercy should be higher for this than for other forms of seriously bad behaviour. Given how widespread it is, could our extreme reaction to it be neurotic? This society had a strange attitude to children - it sentimentalises them, sexualises them and fears them. But maybe that’s coming from something deeper than society.

Finally, lots of us have felt / would admit to feeling the desire to act violently or even murderously towards each other. Is it easier to condemn (and harder to forgive) a paedophile than a murderer, because the former is acting from an urge that we don’t feel? And if it is easier to condemn a paedophile, should we be slower to do it, and quicker to forgive?

“Would you find it as troubling if instead of inappropriately touching his daughter because he found her sexually attractive, he gave her a fat lip because he was suffering from a schizophrenic delusion?”

Interesting question! I think what’s interesting about it is that schizophrenia is a recognised, treatable condition and paedophiliac desire is … what? It seems to me (and maybe I’m wrong, I’m not an expert) that a person’s basic sexual desires are not things that can really be controlled. If that’s right, then on the one hand we should not demonise peadophiles for having their desires, only for acting on them; but then we should also perhaps be less willing to allow them back into families, since they can’t ever be “cured” only controlled. And because sexual preferences are so intimately linked with identity (discuss) that’s why I find it hard to understand why someone would let an offender back into the family once this side of their identity was made manifest.
The Dawkins point: well, I think it’s true that it is possible to overstate the harms of any kinds of adult-child sexual contact, as though “inappropriate touching” and rape were basically the same. But at the same time, erring on the side of caution is hardly stupid in these circumstances. Sometimes strong taboos are needed, even if the consequence of having them is that we over-react to some acts..

“It seems to me (and maybe I’m wrong, I’m not an expert) that a person’s basic sexual desires are not things that can really be controlled”

Well ‘chemical castration’ is an option and has certain analogies with anti-psychotics for schizophrenia.

I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that societal reaction to pedophiles is neurotic. The damage caused by a punch on the nose is temporary. The damage caused by a pedophile is invisible, and lasts for decades. You learn to cope with it, you can never be ‘cured’, like a broken nose can.

Don’t minimize the damage done by a pedophile in any quest to figure out the morality of punishing and/or forgiving them. The damage can lead to suicide: is that okay? Drug and alcohol abuse are prominent with victims of pedophilia. Basically, you can’t consider the morality of forgiving a pedophile in a vacuum: you have to consider the consequences of his act.

I don’t think you can over-react with pedophilia, or rape. Pedophiles, even with “inappropriate touching” rob the victim of their innocence. They will never feel totally safe - ever again. Even when they deny their feelings accepting that monster back into their lives, they won’t be the same person.

Lock ‘em up. And never let ‘em out. And I consider that to be a little too mild. (Chemical castration has a dubious record; it’s not entirely successful.)

Carolyn Ann

For whatever reason, a culture usually needs something which is “beyond the pale,” an activity through which one looses any standing as a human, you know, to make the title more valuable.

Pedophiles and Serial Killers (not simple murderers) fit this description. What I find most morally disturbing is the idea of an action for which there can be no forgiveness. Being able to view an 8 year old sexually constitutes a genetic aberration and molesting someone too young to give consent is certainly criminal, but when does the humanity of the criminal flee from him as it most certainly does in the eyes of society?

I think forgiveness benefits the victim far more than the one being forgiven, and it’s for that reason I don’t like crimes making someone infinitely hate-able. I think you can over-react with pedophilia if your resentment prevents you from moving on as a victim or friend of a victim. Retribution may work for the legal system, but for the individual it can gravely aggravate one’s ability to cope.

Nevertheless, I find this issue fascinating, “can you forgive a child molester,” is the sort of harsh and uncomfortable ethical question I’d raise if I ever taught ethics.

As the future is an optional heavy thing I would have thought the mother would bet on a recidivist possibility. Not so much the daughter but the world is full of little girls.

The world is also filled with other men, Mom ought to have placed her bets accordingly. Right now Dad may be in a park with a pocket full of lollipops.

Sometimes it’s one strike and you’re out.

There are many cases in the news (and not all cases
are reported) where the mother protects her mate, knowing that he is abusing his daughter or step-daughter or son/step-son. The misplaced loyalty that occurs among couples can not be underestimated. Economic motives also play a part if the male is the chief bread-winner in the family.
A small child may be pressured by both parents to say what pleases both of them: I love daddy.
As Carolyn Ann and others have pointed out, child abuse tends to create a life-long trauma, as does domestic violence against children. I can still recall blow by blow certain beatings received 50 years ago. Forgiveness is a another matter. We can certainly forgive those who do harm to us and perhaps should forgive them, but an 8 year old girl is in no position to forgive a father who abuses her. Perhaps when she is 38, she will be able to forgive him, forgiveness being a process that comes from within, from understanding the weakness of the person who did one harm.

It’s worth pointing out that many abused children want to stay with abusive parents, even when the abuse is very, very extreme. A child’s love is that strong…and that’s one of the reasons the abuse is so repulsive. So I think the girl’s preferences say very little about whether the reunion made sense. The mother’s willingness to forgive strikes me as bizarre. But…trying to be charitable (and I didn’t listen to the interview) maybe she saw him as a a “new person” after his incarceration and treatment. Unfortunately, with the high recidivism rate for pedophiles, that probably wasn’t true.

No, it’s not “love”. It’s a need to survive, and if the means to survive is perceived to be horrible, well, the child will put up with it.

As my therapist said: children adapt and accommodate in order to survive.

Obviously there are exceptions; whenever people are involved, there always are. But, in general, children will do what they perceive is needed to keep themselves alive. It’s biology, pure and simple.

I’m sure the girl’s feelings on the issue are really confused; when she’s 38 (as amos says), she might be able to figure things out. Forgiveness is merely one part of the equation.

(Me? I’ve never forgiven, and I never will)

Carolyn Ann

I feel I should explain.

I was in therapy for a couple of years, and one of the things I found out is that my survival “mechanisms” took over after the trauma of being raped. (I was about 8, the first time.) I didn’t say anything because to do so was to challenge my ability to survive. Don’t forget: in the case of sexual trauma, like so many other traumas, rational thought is not especially noticeable. In fact, it’s nowhere to be seen.

So, although it was the neighbor, my perception was that I couldn’t tell. (I could go into why, but it’s still a “little” painful.)

It took until I was 42 to realize that the rape wasn’t my fault; I hadn’t done anything to bring that couple into my life. That’s merely a small sign of the confusion, the self-loathing and the utter despair you feel. It’s not just a loss of innocence, it’s the loss of a childhood. All of a sudden you know something about humanity that no child should know. And that’s not “sentimentalising” them, it’s simply the theft of a childhood.

I really don’t think it possible to “forgive” the pedophile without considering the consequences for their victims. No, we should not be slow to condemn these horrors; we should be careful in our accusation, but quick to condemn and imprison these thieves of innocence.

I’d answer the question about sexual stuff and identity, but right now I can’t.

Please, do not take this as my precluding conversation; I’d rather not say anything than promote such a thought. It is a subject I, unfortunately, have some experience with and what I’ve written here about my experiences was astonishingly difficult to write. In your thinking, and conversation, please don’t neglect the victims of pedophiles, or of any sexual predator. And please don’t assume that normal reactions and considerations apply to the situation of the victims, or the girl’s mother.

I’ll not say anything more on this subject. It’s just too damn painful. Too many things I’d rather not remember.

Carolyn Ann

PS But don’t let that ever stop anyone from posing serious questions. After all, the trivial is easy to consider. The worthwhile usually involves some effort, and maybe some bad memories. I discovered in therapy that there is no “quick fix”, and that having the courage to stand up and confront the difficult is as much a lesson as understanding the events themselves. So please, keep posing the difficult, the contentious and the plain ornery. Without those, this blog would simply stagnate. And that would be shame. /CA

I thought I’d read recidivism was relatively low but I stand corrected by this study (on a very quick skim).

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/11/15729/12633

A few comments on Carolyn Ann’s points:

I wasn’t trying to minimise the damage done by paedophiles. I am aware that the victims suffer terrible psychological truama, the extent of which depends on the crime and the personality of the victim. But there is a distinction between rape and inappropriate touching. And some people commit suicide because they have been bullied at school or work or on the estate, or because they’ve been burgled, or deserted by a partner. The seriousness we attach to crimes or bad behaviour (and hence the degree of punishment or condemnation) is calibrated to the seriousness of the consequences to the victim, but that can’t be done at an individual level.

I can appreciate the anger you must feel as a victim. As a father, if anyone abused my daughter I would be out for blood. But anger justifies bad behaviour as well as good. Lynch mobs are angry. The 9/11 bombers were angry.

I very much agree with Marcus’ points, and I think the viewpoint put forward by Carolyn that “you can’t over-react with paedophilia” goes against both justice and whatever residuum of Christianity remains in our society. (I’m not a Christian, but let’s not replace it with something worse, eh?) I mean would it be okay to torture paedophiles? Quite a few people wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I’ve been trying to get my head around this issue, and I realize that one (of the many) thing I don’t understand is how sexually molesting a child is clearly worse than beating her. I honestly don’t understand why people attribute virtually infinite evil to sexual molesters but seem to forgive batterers.

For what it’s worth, I sympathise with Doug’s ignorance (it’s like we have to pretend to find the difference clear, for fear of some of that infinite evil rubbing off on us:)

Doug,
The difference that makes it clearly worse is that there is an association created between sex and violence in the psyche of the assaulted. A battering is just a battering and it is no great loss if an aversion to it ensues. The damage to the capacity to have a sexual relationship, after the destruction of trust that child sexual abuse is, must be an aggravation. Difficulties in relationship is commonly reported after such trauma.

The child batterer is normally in a rage and out of control. You can imagine that, probably. The pedophile is actually taking pleasure at a child’s expense. That’s seems creepier. Then you add the fact that sexuality is “not for children” and the fact that being attracted to them is strange. All very creepy. I’m done thinking about that now. I’m sure Carolyn Ann doesn’t care to analyze either…maybe this is one form of disgust we ought to just “go with.” If you don’t feel it, it’s probably not important (no infinite evil rubbing off), just so long as you take the crime seriously.

I understand the revulsion, Jean, but your comments are anti-philosophy.

Good God! Not at all. I did try to analyze the special revulsion about pedophiles, but there just may be limits to explaining.

An analogous case: Apparently disgruntled cooks at fast food restaurants sometimes add a wad of spit to the hamburgers. (According to the book Fast Food Nation). Say that I find that disgusting, and you think it’s just definitely bad, but you don’t have that “yuck!” reaction. We agree that it shouldn’t be allowed.

I can see trying to explain to you why I find it disgusting (and I did try to explain why pedophiles are revolting), but should I go on and on about it? Maybe not, since we do agree that spitting shouldn’t be allowed (like pedophelia shouldn’t be allowed.) The feeling might be something either you have or you don’t, but can’t be 100% explained.

Okay just to try and take your points as they come, Jean, in your previous post you argued that the batterer was not in control and the paedophile was, and that the paedophile was taking pleasure while the batterer was not. I’m not sure of the basis for any of those assertions.

That sexuality is “not for children” is not a “fact” as you describe it. It’s a value statement most of us would subscribe to, although we might want to ask what it means more precisely.

You say that being attracted to children is strange. Damaging if acted on yes, but how “strange”? You don’t have to look far into pop culture to think that the cuteness/attractiveness signals that make us want to protect children seem fairly well mixed up with those that make us desire adults. There’s that Britney Spears video for a start.

“Done thinking about”…”Carolyn doesn’t want to analyse”…”just go with it”. As David Mamet likes to say, if you refuse to think, then this conversation is over.

On your second post, if I didn’t have the yuck reaction to spitting in burgers why would I think it was definitely bad? Provided their mucus wasn’t carrying any nasty bugs, I might think the nutritional value of the burger had been improved. And isn’t there a tribe that chews food as part of its preparation? Are they “definitely bad”?

I didn’t really understand your final paragraph. But I think it is important that we think clearly about this. Our judicial system’s treatment of paedophiles should not, on principle, be based on feelings of revulsion. Nor should those feelings stop us from allowing someone who has done the time for a crime the committed from returning to society. And there are some marginal cases, people who are suspected paedophiles but it’s not clear, people who are wrongly accused or convicted, people who have (other) mental problems and did it when they were not in control of their actions. Hold back the mob.

Basis for assertions: reading about batterers and pedophiles. Knowing about adult and child sexuality from books, experience, my own children, etc. Brittany’s post-pubescent–completely different.

Re: spit. If it doesn’t repulse you, you might still think the spitters can’t be trusted to get their health checks. So you might agree it should be disallowed.

If you and I agree on the right punishment for pedophiles, we really don’t need to explain our different emotional reactions to each other. If we don’t agree, that’s another matter. Then the question is whether emotions should enter into it. There’s a lot of great literature on emotions and ethics/law, and I don’t have a settled opinion about it.

Carolyn Ann said it was painful to recall being raped as an 8 year old. Isn’t it really OK to try to be sensitive?

If you really think it’s important to have a thorough analysis of what’s gross about a man screwing a 5 year old, somebody else is going to have to volunteer. I do find it too gross to ponder for very long. Call me unphilosophical…see if I care!

If you do, have at it! I said 10 words all of which t you disagreed with. Feel free to take over the analysis! I

Whoops…the last line was blather that I meant to delete.

Nietzsche says somewhere that people need to punish. The need to punish seems to have more to do with the horror that the crime produces than with a consequentialist calculation about the effects of the punishment. Child abuse and child rape are among the crimes that produce most horror. Perhaps that horror could be psychoanalyzed or analyzed in terms of evolutionary psychology, but anyway, that horror is there. It’s not a rational thing and I don’t see why it should be a rational thing.

I agree with Doug and Enigman. There has to be a point where sexual molestation (at the inappropriate touching end of the scale) is not so bad as battering (at the lasting serious physical damage end).

I see what you mean about creepy and gross, but I think we need to be a bit careful. Some people think that sex between adult consenting males is creepy and gross. Of course there are good reasons why we ignore their intuitions and don’t ignore intuitions about child sex, but at least we have to acknowledge that more than emotional reactions are involved.

I wonder, in passing, whether mothers of young children are especially likely to have the creepy and gross reaction (more than other people, or perhaps other people except the ones who were unfortunate enough to have personal experience of being sexually molested as a child). The reason I wonder this is my sister, an extremely calm and unemotional person and also a science teacher, talking about whether she could bear going to Gunther von Haagens’ “Bodyworlds” exhibition, and saying that since she had become a mother, the thought of a small child ‘even being a little bit sad’ (I quote from memory) was almost unbearable. (Bodywolds has foetuses in utero).

Jean

Your assertions are still a long way from proven or self-evident.

I think the burger metaphor has gone off the rails.

The reaction to this crime is necessarily emotional so I think we need to analyse it before we can get to the right punishments.

I’m not forcing Carolyn or anyone to read or contribute to this blog, but while Carolyn’s personal experiences are pertinent to the discussion, I don’t think they should be the final word on the subject.

As for whether I think it’s necessary to have a thorough analysis, no I don’t want graphic details, I know what’s gross about it, I don’t feel any less horror about it than you (or Pontentilla’s sister), but I think it’s important to think about these issues coolly, and forgiving paedophiles is the subject of the discussion.

By the way Potentilla made an excellent point in her (?) second paragraph.

I’m going to wade back into this (probably foolishly)…

I actually think what I originally said (12:10 pm) made a lot of sense…

Doug and Enigman said they couldn’t see a difference between battering and sexually abusing. I tried to state a difference. This wasn’t supposed to resolve anything about how to punish or whether to forgive.

What I said, with a little more elaboration– First: battering. As a parent myself, I know that it’s easy to get angry at children. It’s also easy to yell too much and treat them too roughly. Batterers in lots of cases are people like me who have more problems with “anger management.” They usually have more stress in their lives, etc. They are more or less normal persons who have gone haywire. So I can relate to them more or less. (My assumptions are attested in tons of things I’ve read. Try the book Random Family if you want a look at the lives of people who beat their kids.)

Sexual abusers have very unusual sexual impulses. They are not normal people who have gone haywire. I do think their sexuality is creepy. Though I’ve had to unlearn some emotional reactions over the years, I don’t see a reason to unlearn this one.

There’s also a difference that’s nicely described in terms of Kant’s notion of treating people as a means. A batterer doesn’t treat the child as a means. She’s just out of control, and really has no goal at all.

A molester does have a goal–his own pleasure. He does use the child purely as a means.

As I said, I think both things are bad, and I’m saying nothing about forgiveness or punishment. People who react differently to them are not irrational…that’s all.

Carolyn Ann’s comments remind me that the controversial topics we talk about here may well strike raw nerves, so we should be careful. But also, how good it is that someone can be open with her experience without buying into the kind of “argument from experience and feeling”, by which people make out that because they have personal experience which others don’t, that’s the end of the debate. Thanks, CA.

FWIW, I wasn’t suggesting that you (or I) should try to unlearn that emotional reaction. I was motivated to post by someone above claiming that “a battering is just a battering” which probably sounds more dismissive than it was intended. (And of course some batterings, or at any rate non-sexual physical harm, are inflicted by people who enjoy causing pain, rather than people who are out of control).

Returning to Julian’s original q, maybe the reason the mother wanted to forgive was the same sort of reason (whatever that might be) that so many battered women return to their batterers time and time again. I don’t understand it at all, but it seems to be the general sort of triumph of hope over experience and inability to learn.

“Doug and Enigman said they couldn’t see a difference between battering and sexually abusing. ”

Just to be clear, this is what I said: “I honestly don’t understand why people attribute virtually infinite evil to sexual molesters but seem to forgive batterers.”

I think potentilla put her finger on it right here: “There has to be a point where sexual molestation (at the inappropriate touching end of the scale) is not so bad as battering (at the lasting serious physical damage end).”

The original topic was forgiving the pediaphile - esp. by the parent of the child. It is agreed in the above, I believe, that a) the perpetrator has a non-standard sexual orientation. b) It is controlable - that means he doesn’t abuse children in front of the police station in broad daylight. c) physical abuse is more likely to leave physical damage, sexual abuse more psychological damge - although there is a large overlap. d) this behavior - not the orientation - is the part society has every right to minimize for the protection of its children. This entails certain consequences for the perpetrator which are meant to protect the children.
e) punishment is not neccessarily a good or effective form of future control - but that is another discussion.

To forgive means, to me, that one minimizes the effect of the perpetrators past actions on our current relationship to some unspecified degree. Only persons can forgive - society, institutions cannot. When they say they do they are only selectivly “forgetting” by acting as if something never happened the way it did.
Whether this particular person could be forgiven depends to a large degree on the amount of damage done to the child - and that can only be judged years later. The wife obviously has needs in her personal relationship with this man that allows her to mitigate the damage, whatever she thought it was, done.
She felt the need to forgive.
Society needs to control.
We can and should dicuss - what is forgiveness, what are it’s functions, how does it affect our lives.
We can also discuss consequences, control, punishment as well as the psychology of child abuse for all the parties involved. Each discussion and its questions arise from the same incident - but are different - and not neccessarily overlapping - aspects of the same abnormal interaction of father and child.
We can certainly let our emotions inform our rational mind - but emotions are a different brain function than rational thinking and handle the same information source in a completely different way. IMHO philosophy is about the latter, by reflecting, using the former to perhaps judge the importance of the matter to us.
By that criteria the discussion certainly seems very important.

Another tangent; I’ve been thinking about Julian’s post at 6.50pm. Of course it’s true that the argument from personal experience is not a debate-stopper. But it’s also true that some people know (about themselves) what others can only intuit or introspect (about themselves). That’s sort of what I was trying to say when I mentioned my sister.

Carolyn Ann is the only person (AFAIK) in this discussion who doesn’t need to guess what he would feel if sexually abused as a child. Those of you who are parents similarly know something that the rest of us don’t. Your reactions might be different to what ours would be, but at least you don’t have to guess about yours.

The reason this seems to me important is that I doubt we always have very good introspective access to what we will feel about an event before it happens. I, for instance, know what I feel about having a terminal diagnosis, and it’s not what I probably woud have thought it would be before I did. You might know what you would think in the same situation….but you might be wrong.

If we are not going to use purely utilitarian criteria as measured by some kind of happiness meter to run society, we need to prohibit some things, like child molesting, simply because they repel us. That is, some things need to be considered sacred and some things need to be considered profane, taboo, for instance, child molesting, whether or not we can measure if a minor incident of child molesting causes more damage than a violent thrashing. Most of the people who regularly post in this blog are atheists, including myself, and perhaps a vision of the sacred and profane, which has nothing to do with the non-existence of God, is what is often lacking from the discourse of atheists. Perhaps we could “market” atheism more successfully if we had a clear sense of what is sacred (for instance, great works of art, nature, friendship, clarity of thought) and what is profane (child molesting, hate crimes,
rape, etc.) By the way, for me forgiveness is important. Forgiveness liberates she who forgives from the past, but I have my doubts about forgiveness when personal interests, such as keeping a wage-earner out of jail, may be concerned.

Uwe,
The topic of forgiveness is the central issue. It’s a two sided thing, one side has to ask for forgiveness and the other has the right to grant or refuse it. To get into the state where forgiveness can be granted requires healing. How that is achieved depends on the resources available to you.

potentilla wrote “I, for instance, know what I feel about having a terminal diagnosis, and it’s not what I probably would have thought it would be before I did.” Thank you for talking openly about it on your blog and elsewhere. I very much hope you’ve still got a good chunk of time.

Sorry for the tardy (I’ve been inbetween places) response, but I should have said that it was the difference ceteris paribus that eluded me. E.g. if Santa hit a child, because the guy playing that role had always enjoyed bullying (for some reason), that hit might cause the child little physical disress but a lot of psychological damage. It seemed to me that if someone tended to hit children (their own or others) too harshly, when he (or she) thought that they were asking for it, then that might cause (whatever its origins) lasting psychological harm to them (and it seems to me that we want to investigate the origins of such behaviour).

The problem with our disgusted and hateful attitude towards paedophilia is that it actually punishes the innocent. There are many adults who are strongly aroused by children or adolescents, but who do not and will not act on their desires. I know this because I am one, and because I have seen many support groups across the internet full of men claiming to keep their paedophilia firmly in the realm of fantasy. Sure, some of those men may be hiding something, but there are thousands of them, and since I know that I am not lying when I say I will never abuse, this gives me reason to trust some of the other men who claim this about themselves.

So paedophilia is not child abuse, it is sexual attraction to children. Of course it is a motivating reason to abuse children, just as heterosexuality motivates us to try and sleep with the opposite sex. But many hetero- and homosexuals are able to lead celibate lives without being tempted to commit rape. And contrary to popular belief, the same is true of paedophiles. This may be moral luck, but then you could say the same about celibate non-paedophiles; should the opportunity present itself, maybe they would feel compelled rape women or men.

Now society’s understandable disgust and anger is mistakenly directed at all paedophiles, regardless of whether they could even bring themselves to touch a child without being overcome with guilt and self-loathing. And this problem is as serious as homophobia or even racism. Imagine if scientists suddenly discovered that homosexual sex was very harmful to the recipient, and therefore must be made illegal. We’d quite reasonably be angered by homosexuals who continued to have sex with men, knowing that they were causing a lot of harm. But would we, or should we, be disgusted by the homosexuality itself? Would it be fair to call gay men ‘monsters’, and to equate their sexual attraction to men as on a par with the desire to murder innocent people? How would gay people feel if we had that attitude towards them?

But paedophiles are everywhere, and they often pose no danger to children. Paedophilic attraction is qualitatively the same as ordinary sexuality; what makes it a problem, and possibly an illness, is that it is directed at people who are too young to take part in sexual acts. But the point is that merely being attracted to children does not make one more prone to dishonesty, weak will, aggression, etc.. The distinction between paedophiles and non-paedophiles is merely the fact that paedophiles are turned on by the appearance of children instead of adults.

And like everybody else, paedophiles do not choose who they are sexually attracted to; it happens to them, and they have to live with it. What this means is that when we direct hatred and anger towards someone purely because they have an attraction towards children, we are no better than racists or homophobes; just as we cannot help what race we are born with, we cannot help how our sexuality develops. And the prejudice against paedophiles is just as damaging as that against other minority groups. It’s incredibly hurtful to be called a ‘monster’ or a ‘freak’, or to be told that you are ’sick’ and should be killed (even though the usual cure for sickness is treatment, not murder). Being open about your sexuality is not an option for paedophiles; just as is once wasn’t for homosexuals. You could lose your job, your friends, or even be subject to a vigilante attack.

Anyway, to wrap things up, this is why I believe that we need to keep our emotions way out of the issue of paedophilia. Let the courts and prisons punish the child molesters based on hard facts about what the consequences of their actions are, and on what will effectively deter either them or others from committing further such acts. If we add our own form of punishment into the mix with our sensationalist and frankly superstitious hatred towards all minor-attracted adults, we will continue to isolate thousands of innocent men and women and make their lives unbearable. This is collateral damage, and it needs to be stopped.

I do not wish to distract attention from the obvious, long-lasting pain that victims of child abuse go through. It must be hell. And nor do I wish to suggest that the law itself need necessarily change, or that we should relax our attitude towards people who actually abuse children. It goes without saying that children need to be protected from harm. But it is less obvious that adult men and women must not discriminated against based merely on their thoughts, regardless of whether these thoughts lead to harmful actions. Like it or not, paedophiles are among us, and they are human beings with human rights that must be protected providing they obey the law.
So paedophilia is not child abuse, it is sexual attraction to children. Of course it is a motivating reason to abuse children, just as heterosexuality motivates us to try and sleep with the opposite sex. But many hetero- and homosexuals are able to lead celibate lives without being tempted to commit rape. And contrary to popular belief, the same is true of paedophiles. This may be moral luck, but then you could say the same about celibate non-poaedophiles; should the oppurtunity present itself, maybe they would feel compelled rape women or men.

Now society’s understandable disgust and anger is mistakenly directed at all paedophiles, regardless of whether they could even bring themselves to touch a child without being overcome with guilt and self-loathing. And this problem is as serious as homophobia or even racism. Imagine if scientists suddenly discovered that homosexual sex was very harmful to the recipient, and therefore must be made illegal. We’d quite reasonably be angered by homosexuals who continued to have sex with men, knowing that they were causing a lot of harm. But would we, or should we, be disgusted by the homosexuality itself? Would it be fair to call gay men ‘monsters’, and to equate their sexual attraction to men as on a par with the desire to murder innocent people? How would gay people feel if we had that attitude towards them?

I don’t want to distract attention from the obvious pain that victims of child abuse must go through. It must be hell. And nor do I wish to suggest that the law itself need necessarily change, or that we should relax our attitude towards people who actually abuse children.

But paedophiles are everywhere, and they often pose no danger to children. Paedophilic attraction is qualititively the same as ordinary sexuality; what makes it a problem, and possibly an illness, is that it is directed at people who are too young to take part in sexual acts. But the point is that merely being attracted to children does not make one more prone to dishonesty, weak will, agression, etc.. The distinction between paedophiles and non-paedophiles is merely the fact that paedophiles are turned on by the appearance of children instead of adults.

And like everyobody else, paedophiles do not choose who they are sexually attracted to; it happens to them, and they have to live with it. What this means is that when we direct hatred and anger towards someone purely because they have an attraction towards children, we are no better than racists or homophobes; just as we cannot help what race we are born with, we cannot help how our sexuality develops. And the prejudice against paedophiles is just as damaging as that against other minority groups. It’s incredibly hurtful to be called a ‘monster’ or a ‘freak’, or to be told that you’re ’sick’ and should be killed (even though the usual cure for sickness is treatment, not murder). Being open about your sexuality is just not an option for paedophiles; just as ist once wasn’t an option for homosexuals. You could lose your job, your friends, or even be subject to a vigilante attack.

Anyway, to wrap things up, this is why I believe that we need to keep our emotions way out of the issue of paedophilia. Let the courts and prisons punish the child molestors. If we add our own form of punishment into the mix with our sensationalist and frankly supersticious hatred towards all minor-attracted adults, we will continue to isolate thousands of innocent men and make their lives unbearable. This is collateral damage, and it needs to be stopped.

I forgot to paste in this paragraph…

I do not wish to distract attention from the obvious, long-lasting pain that victims of child abuse go through. It must be hell. And nor do I wish to suggest that the law itself need necessarily change, or that we should relax our attitude towards people who actually abuse children. It goes without saying that children need to be protected from harm. But it is less obvious that adult men and women must not discriminated against based merely on their thoughts, regardless of whether these thoughts lead to harmful actions. Like it or not, paedophiles are among us, and they are human beings with human rights that must be protected providing they obey the law.

(Sorry my message is so long, hopefully somebody will have the time to read it.)

Actually, that post was a complete mess wasn’t it… I didn’t finish editing. Oops.

A shocked silence.

That certainly makes for uncomfortable reading. I’ve never heard anyone admit to this before. But I think the point is well made that we need to master our emotional response on this subject. Ultimately the issue is about human rights, not paedophiles.

Yes, it’s about human rights, and as strange as this sounds, law-abiding paedophiles have as much right to be respected as anyone else. When paedophiles with no history of abuse are called ’sickos’ or ‘monsters’ based purely on their sexuality (which they only channel into private, legal activities), this should shock and outrage us as much as the use of racial slurs.

Ben, I empathize with your sense of isolation and frustration.

But be careful. Paedophiles are not ‘everywhere’; the internet only makes it seem so.

Comparisons with homosexuality and heterosexuality are dangerous. Legitimate relationahips of these types are always between consenting adults. Sexual relationships between adults and minors will always be exploitative and damaging to both parties.

Sexual relationships can be dangerous, for example if one partner is carrying HIV, or if the wife in a heterosexual relationship is a devout Catholic, won’t use contraception but is in danger if she becomes pregnant. These couples can always find means of sexual release but paedophiles never can.

Even masturbation & pornography is barred because the pornography must originate somewhere and one could not condon the marketing of adult-child sex.

So in the end the paedophile is almost alone - however, there are treatments and these should be tackled. Not “cures”, but at least managing the problem. That is all there is, I’m afraid.

Should paedophiles be forgiven? Yes, absolutely if they honestly seek treatment. The example given is much too simple. How could a woman comtemplate continuing intimate relations with a man who had made sexual overtures to her young daughter? She should at least inisist on a period of “exile” and treatment.

I apologise for this being brief or disjointed. I would simply like to say that I enjoyed reading your response Ben, and agree with much of what you have said. I do think we have the wrong attitude as a society, and we should concentrate on those who commit child abuse, rather than those who harbour sexual feelings towards children but do not act upon them. I do believe that sexual attraction like this cannot be controlled, but that actions can be. However, this viewpoint is unusual. General public feeling (some example of which is here) has little sympathy and great disgust for the subject. And someone tell me how a paedophile could “seek treatment” when even professionals won’t bother to hide their revulsion?

Toby,

I was not making a comparison between paedophilic relationships and hetero-/homosexual relationships. I compared paedophilic feelings with hetero-/homosexual feelings. This comparison is very important, because when it is not realised, people get discriminated against purely for their thoughts and not for their actions. The common sense view is that paedophilic feelings are necessarily destructive, violent feelings which have the power to compel even the most moral and rational man to commit atrocious acts. The reality is that paedophilic feelings are much like homosexual or heterosexual feelings… they are strong, sexually- and romantically-charged desires for contact with other human beings.

Paedophilic actions are another matter, but these needn’t accompany the desires. Paedophiles can express their feelings in solitary ways, and be satisfied by this to a reasonable degree (child porn may be illegal, but home movies on youtube are not).

Ben,

Psychiatrists and doctors get very concerned when a patient admits that they have fantasies about killing people, or raping people, for example. Fantasies often precede actions.

Whether I feel disgusted by your paedophilic impulses is not important: what is important is that you are a danger to society, you are a ticking time-bomb. Just because you may not have acted on your impulses yet does not make you “safe”. Do not for a second think that what you are doing is OK, because you haven’t hurt anyone . . . YET. The fact that these impulses are as uncontrollable as you have pointed out only makes you more of a threat.

Paedophilia is different to other forms of sexuality because it can never be an expression of love, it can only ever be a violation of the worst kind. I have been close to a few people who have been sexually abused as children, and depending on the severity of the abuse they still exhibit varying degrees of maladjustment and mental / emotional problems.

Sexual abuse destroys people’s lives in so many ways: some obvious, some insidiously subtle. Please seek help for this extremely serious problem now, before you do hurt someone.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I realise you probably won’t see this now…

There’s a world of difference between fantasising about consensual sex with someone and fantasizing about hurting someone. I imagine you probably think (as most people do) that consensual sex with young adolescents is impossible because they can’t consent. That may well be true, but in the realm of fantasy anything is possible, and consensual sex is what I fantasise about. I am not comparable to people who regularly fantasise about rape and murder… it worries me that you would think that. I am not a danger to society, I am a member of society. I am not a ticking time-bomb either. What makes you think that paedophilic desires are more urgent than ordinary sexual desires? I imagine you probably have the ability to control your sexual impulses and refrain from acting on them. What makes you think I don’t?

It worries me that you think that what I am doing is not OK, since I am not hurting anyone. Why shouldn’t I be free to think about whatever I want and do whatever I want to my own body in private? If you think I am somehow increasing the likelihood that I will hurt somebody in the future, then you need to explain why. It’s not obvious.

Paedophilia can be an expression of love. Arguably not mutual love, but many paedophiles certainly have strong romantic feelings for children. They often don’t. I don’t, I’ll admit that; I experience strong sexual feelings for adolescent girls, but not since my own adolescence have I had romantic feelings for them (although that could be just because I don’t tend to meet them). But anyway, adults often have purely lustful feelings for other adults, and it’s not taboo for adults to express pure lust and have ‘meaningless sex’ with each other, or just to admire the bodies of other adults or masturbate over purely sexual thoughts about other adults. It is normal (healthy, in fact) for men to be sexually attracted to women without necessarily falling in love with them. You can claim that paedophilic feelings are unhealthy, and I expect you to, but they are not unhealthy just because they are sexual feelings that don’t necessarily have a romantic element to them. It is not unhealthy to have lust without love. And paedophiles can and do love children, so a lack of love is not the difference between paedophilia and normal sexuality anyway. The difference between paedophilia and normal sexuality is just that paedophiles fancy children, not adults.

I also object to your statement that paedophilia “can only be a violation of the worst kind”. First of all, you don’t have to ever go near a child to be a paedophile; it’s a sexual attraction, not a pattern of behaviour. Secondly, sexual contact with children is not necessarily even in the same league as violent rape, torture, mutilation, or other terrible violations of human beings. Many acts of child abuse are horrific, of course. You probably believe that all sexual acts with children are bad, which is understandable, but let’s be clear here: fondling a 13 year old child is nowhere near as bad as killing or raping somebody. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “violation of the worst kind”. Rape, torture, murder etc. are all clearly MUCH worse. So paedophilic actions are often not violations of the worst kind. They may be violations, but they vary in strength, and it is an insult to victims of e.g. torture to imply that certain mild paedophilic acts are worse than what torture-victims have been through. It’s also pretty terrifying to be considered, by implication, worse than a serial killer or someone who kidnaps and tortures people, when all I have ever done is masturbated in the privacy of my bedroom.

Sexual abuse destroys people’s lives, you’re absolutely right. But by ‘sexual abuse’ I mean non-consensual, coercive, manipulative or violent sexual acts. I don’t even fantasise about those. Do you have any evidence that non-aggressive, possibly non-penetrative (depending on age; obviously pre-pubescent children would be harmed by actual intercourse), consensual sexual intimacy between children and adults always leads to harm, subtle or otherwise? It’s no good citing cases of child-rape or sexual violence against children, because while those obviously lead to a great degree of suffering, they have nothing to do with me. I don’t even fantasise about those sorts of acts, so you can’t tell me I have an unhealthy desire to hurt people based on those extreme cases.

I hope you get a chance to read this, and that you consider the points I have made and respond directly to them. What usually happens when I discuss this is that I write a long post dealing with what’s been said point-by-point, and then the response I get is just a restatement of the original case against paedophilia, with no consideration of the new points I’ve raised. Or even worse, I get death threats.

ben - you’re a brave man.

I think about all sorts of crazy stuff to get me off when Im wanking, but it doesn’t mean Im into those things in my ACTUAL life!

I guess I see Bens preference as the ultimate objectification of the female - as naive (gullible/empty headed/purely physical) and as tight as possible (the ultimate cock receptacle bar the anus)

i see many many men (aged anything up to the age of 70) lecherously staring at very young girls …

makes me want to forget all about any pathetic concepts of genuine romantic relationships with men