In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.
But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."
Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.
There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, honorary research fellow at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.
Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – "the psychiatrist's bible" – has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.
This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".
Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."
Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."
If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.
The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."
Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.
Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question – as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."
This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.
But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".
Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".
If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia – something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).
Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."
For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."
For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."
We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".
• This article was amended on 3 January 2012. The original incorrectly suggested that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychological Association, and misspelled Dunkelfeld as Dunkenfeld. This article was further amended on 21 January 2013 because the original referred to Sarah Goode as a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester. This has been corrected to say honorary research fellow.
In these critical times …
… help us protect independent journalism at a time when factual, trustworthy reporting is under threat by making a year-end gift to support The Guardian. We’re asking our US readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year so that we can report on the stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution you give will help us reach our goal.
The Guardian’s editorial independence means that we can pursue difficult investigations, challenging the powerful and holding them to account. No one edits our editor and no one steers our opinion.
In 2018, The Guardian broke the story of Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook data breach; we recorded the human fallout from family separations; we charted the rise of the far right, and documented the growing impact of gun violence on Americans’ lives. We reported daily on climate change as a matter of urgent priority. It was readers’ support that made this work possible.
As 2019 approaches, we would like to ask for your ongoing support. In an era of disinformation campaigns and partisan bots, trustworthy news sources that sort facts from lies are under threat like never before. Unlike many others we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep The Guardian’s reporting open to everyone, regardless of what they can afford. But we depend on voluntary contributions from readers.
We’re in this together – with your support we can keep exposing the truth. We hope to pass our goal by early January 2019. We want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has supported The Guardian so far. Please invest in our independent journalism today by making a year-end gift.
View all comments >
comments (883)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
I thought it was a very brave article but, as a victim of abuse myself, I too worried about the lack of empathy. No one can imagine the shame, guilt and physical pain of child abuse unless they’ve been subjected to it. It can never be consensual on the child’s part. No child could comprehend or understand what they are consenting to. Mostly, as in my case, the abuser is within the family, and will tell you things like “this is how I show I love y…
This is two debates.
Firstly, a human child cannot survive without help from adults, that is how our species works, so in respect to this, paedophiles must control their urges wether they believe them to be returned or not.
Secondly, the dynamics of a paedophilic mind, this is a much bigger question and frankly not for any individual here to speculate on. We can only hope that extensive study can help us understand so that we may make informed…
Hmmm. I was abused as 14/15 year old by a "friend of the family" who was 23. I felt both coerced into the sexual activity and flattered by the attention, because other kids at school said I was a frump and I thought if only they knew that an older man was interested in me, they would think differently. He did not push me into full sex but my boundaries were violated and there was pressure to do more than i wanted to do, even though i refused.
It…
@hrwaldram - I think part of the problem here is because the development from childhood is a progressive process its very difficult to legislate effectively.
Its perfectly *legal* for adults to have sex with children. The age of consent is 16; the age at which you're no longer considered a minor is 18. Having a consensual sexual relationship with a 16 year old isn't against the law nevertheless it is sex with a child. As a society we perhaps are…
Some disturbing opinions. Whether or not a child sees a paedophilic relationship positively or negatively is surely not the point - they cannot give infoirmed consent, and they cannot judge whether the relationship positively or negatively.
Good article. It seems to be rare to see rational argument rather than sloganising or outright hysteria when talking about these matters.
Reminds me of an interesting suggestion from Dutch academics that I recently read about. Like so many law and order issues the UK seems to have a completely different public debate from the rest of Europe.
And yet the very same children are considered capable of making rational judgment calls when they do something spectacularly wrong i.e. like the killers of James Bulger.
Thanks for making the point BabyH - many others here (see gondrin) asking the same question as seems crux of the debate.
Thank you for writing an intelligent and considered article on a subject that normally elicits a knee-jerk reaction. Following Foucault, I believe it is important to dispassionately examine the hate objects we are encouraged to use by the state as our cathartic whipping boys, whether they be paedophiles, homosexuals, immigrants or other marginal groups. We need to be aware of the objective in setting up fall guys: they are always obscuring something else and are always a form of social or emotional manipulation.
whether they be paedophiles, homosexuals, immigrants or other marginal groups/i>
Really? Paedophiles (who rape children) are the same as gays (who have consensual sex with adults of the same sex) and immigrants (who move across borders)?
Not in my world.
@Lime83 - You really believe he said that they are the same?
Learn reading comprehension, for your own sake.
He said they were all marginal groups and hate objects. That's all.
You're the one drawing conclusions beyond that and should probably examine your own psyche for the reasons.
Knee-jerk reactions indeed.
I see your point as it used to be in our society that 'useless' resouces draining elderly ladies would be accused of witchcraft i.e. satanic. And although those women (and men, cows, pigs, sheep etc. also accused of being witches) were clearly innocent, paedos are society's scapegoats (although they are clearly abohorrent), but so are the disabled, the elderly, the benefit claimants, bankers... They are the ultimate corrupters though and I think that is why we all, generally speaking, have a particular loathing for them.
...O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm.”
If.
Indeed. It is a big fat 'if'. Personally I'd be very surprised if all sexual relationships between adults and children were necessary harmful. However I'd be happy to judge the adult as having done something wrong in every case. Just because something isn't sure, or even likely, to result in harm doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Drink driving for instance in most cases won't result in an accident but it is always morally wrong simply because it puts others at unnecessary risk.
If a paedophile could be sure before hand that a relationship would cause no harm then fine, it would be morally acceptable in my view, but you can never ever know that. You can't even know that about adult relationships, the difference is that adults can take responsibility for their own emotional risks where as children can't, so in most cases a paedophile will be weighting up the risks for both parties. The paedophile is inherently biased in favour of the relationship and so completely unsuitable to act as a guardian in that matter.
Furthermore, it seems that in this day and age no unbiased guardian would suppose that such a relationship represented a good balance between risks vs reward. Although this does raise interesting questions about medieval child marriage. Given the importance of making a good marriage, if you could secure a better marriage for someone by marrying them when they were a child this might have been good moral move on behalf of the guardian of the child and so might in some cases have been morally right.
@Persus - very sensible comments, particularly "Just because something isn't sure, or even likely, to result in harm doesn't mean it isn't wrong".
Re mediaeval child marriages, though these were often solemnised for dynastic reasons it was not normal for the parties to live together until they were older. The few cases where they did - eg Margaret Beaufort, who gave birth to Henry Tudor at 13, are often remarked on by contemporaries with some criticism - even Shakespeare has old Capulet reply to Paris's "Younger than she are happy mothers made" with "And too soon marred are those so early made". And since we know that Capulet's own wife had Juliet at about 13, he may be speaking from experience; indeed there are suggestive parallels between Lady C and Margaret: both giving birth very young and having no other child afterwards.
Urgh - how many kids seriously would want a sexual relationship if there was some sort of power thing going on? There are circumstances that might make a child want that sort of love, but they are more than likely the result of abuse and neglect elsewhere. That idea is akin to placing the blame on the victim. Having sex with a child under the age of 16 is wrong end of.
"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
P Tatchell.
Maybe because those people were having sex at that age they are then are using that as some sort of justification to do the same to someone underage. It's illegal for lots of good reasons.
@ElizabethBathory - You're accusing those people of being pedophiles b/c what they say contradicts your views? That's really classy.
@tomkun - l share Elizabeth's view & not that of P Tatchell. I know some really messed up people who were sexually abused aged 9 to13, most are now on hard drugs or having large families they can ill afford & cope with. Does that upset you because it "contradicts your views"? I don't want to be "classy" here for I like to be "class less" on this issue - whether the kids are from a private Prep or state primary I can assure you that no child (my charges are 7 -11) is ready for sex with adults.
Well, how refreshing to read an article which actually asks intelligent questions. Gob-smacking, actually. And about time.
I agree. Perhaps the Guardian is getting back to its roots. It once was a great newspaper. One can only hope it is shaking off its recent obsesion with vacuous "celebrities" and become a serious paper, that is worth buying, once again.
Let's not get too excited. Laws governing sexual behaviour are still very much dictated by the tabloid press.
@andybbn - errr so how do you want the laws to be changed then??
This is a sensitive topic and I appreciate the article raising some uncomfortable possibilities about it. I would make the following assessment of this general area of discussion:
- Paedophilia is ethically challenging, but paedophiles themselves are not necessarily evil. I've seen a number of examples of paedophiles use the cover of anonymity to be very forthright about their state of mind, where they don't want to put children in harm's way and understand that acting on their desires is wrong, but they also feel suffocated by their inability to confess to the people they love. These could be hoaxes, yes, but I'm inclined to believe that it's entirely plausible. Current legal and social climates make it very difficult for someone to confess a sexual interest in children or adolescents without being immediately labeled a criminal suspect.
- I see no reason to believe that paedophilia is necessarily a learned preference. In fact, the rather aggressive attempts to push this idea remind me uncomfortably of the crowd who would prefer homosexuality to be a choice as this allows them to more easily criminalize it.
- I do think sex between adults and children is wrong, but only because of the power differential. Children are not sexless - I should know, I was one - but they can be easily influenced, and as with sex with animals I think there is no real possibility of informed consent. Adults have too much relative power in society to be able to engage with children on equal terms in this area - even if they have no intentions of using that power (i.e. their intentions are "noble").
I think the best way to approach the fact of paedophilia is to provide safe spaces for paedophiles to be open with their desires (though not necessarily act on them). Counselors with specialized training and certain legal safeguards for anonymity, perhaps. This way we can improve the visibility of paedophilia to researchers and counselors, which will benefit both their own quality of life and our understanding of what paedophilia is and how it works. I have no doubt that this would indirectly benefit our understanding of other paraphilias and how we as a society can engage with them.
But first we need to acknowledge the possibility that paedophiles aren't monsters. Some may do monstrous things. But that's true of all human beings, really, isn't it?
Best comment on this subject I have read so far.
Paedophilia rather than being 'learned' or 'innate' (which seems highly improbable) is surely most likely a result of 'stuckness' i.e. it is not that they have necessarily 'learned' to be a paedophile - they simply haven't learned to progress beyond a particular stage of sexual development (often I imagine due to trauma at that young age) and this haven't learned to be be sexually balanced and mature adults.
loaded subject...
It's pretty complex really... if a 15 year old girl has sex with a 19 year old boy few would call that pedophilia... but if that girl was very naive then it could be as coercive as a relationship with a much younger child. Coercion and manipulation exist in many relationships. I think demonizing pedophiles doesn't really help- more studies, more understanding and then more intelligently applied prevention, detention and rehabilitation techniques are needed. For example if Circle UK works then why isn't it publicly funded and rolled out across the UK. We can't have it both ways- if we are so revulsed and concerned about pedophiles then lets put our money where our mouth is and try to protect children.
But the real truth is most abuse (and serious long standing psychological damage ) happens in the home... from parents and/or those known to children. This passing down of trauma and delusion from generation to generation is of far more import than the random sexual deviance of a tiny percentage of the population. When will we look that in the eye?
agree with you completely...
the still underlying taboos about sexual activities of grown up men (and desires of women) is still so heavy, even though we all appear to be freed of the taboos and traumas... reactions of The Public is proof that there's still so much that needs to be understood, that we're still encouraged to be lead by fear in all this...
difficult one to tackle, though...
It doesn't help defining a relationship with a 15 year old as "pedophilia" either. To my mind it isn't. It may be illegal (statutory rape), but it's not deviant in the way that an attraction to an 8 year old is. I would also like to see sensible data on the effect such relationships have on teenagers.
It seems that sensible scientific debate is being stifled by special interest groups and charities that are only interested in research that supports their preconceived conclusions.
LoveisEternal:
All very interesting but that some children/teenagers may 'consent' is neither here nor there. I remember what it was like to be a hormonal teenager and I'm certain that at 13-15 I would have leaped at the chance to have sex with an adult female. But even that still wouldn't have made have made it ok for an adult female to take advantage of that fact.
I appreciate there is a vast difference between the scenario I've described above and the rape of a prepubescent child and it's quite correct that one is considered vastly more serious than the other, but it doesn't mean the first should be ignored.
At the age of 13 I had sex with a woman in her early 20's. I enjoyed it, she enjoyed it and it never affected me in the slightest. :)
That woman did nothing wrong.
Children cannot consent to sex because they cannot fully know what's involved.
@Kulturtrager - Interesting, though I would hesitate to use the 'P' word, which I thing should be reserved for the abusers of prepubescent’s only, I think there would be a strong argument for considering that woman a rapist. I’m sure you would disagree but that’s my gut recation.
Just out of interest would you feel the same about a man in his early 20’s having sex with a 13 year old girl? I don’t think many people would. I’ve noticed a double standard where men are demonised for crimes (and rightly so) that are oddly romanticised when carried out by a woman.
My opinion on this is that pedophiles have the choice on whether they try to put their desires into action, we should feel sorry the ones who don't and punish those who do. Quite simple.
My crude theory is that pedophiles are those people that remain virgins or just very undersexed way into adult life seeing relationships with adult women as too difficult a task to negotiate, then they focus on those that can be manipulated more easily; children.
Time for some Brass Eye!
Well, I'm glad you realise how crude it is!
@OlSlov - Well, I'm sorry I put the word crude in there at all now, I feel like I've denied you the chance of a patronising and/or sarcastic three paragraph talking down.
@Ovilier - sorry, what do you mean?
A brave and cogent article. If there could be one good outcome from the whole sorry Saville affair, apart from some resolution for his victims, it would be a more rational and intelligent attitude towards a complex and poorly understood problem. Of course, paedophilia repels and frightens but, as a society, we must do everything we can to try and understand how and why it happens, even if the answers are not the ones we like. In this way we can better protect children from exploitation and help adults (men and women) who are afflicted.
One of the symptoms of the confusion in wider society is that the range of ages of consent in the laws of differing countries is quite wide; some states in the US have it as 18 whilst Germany and some other parts of Europe go for 14. There appears to be no objective reason for this discrepancy.
This is the second time the age of consent has been listed as 14 for Germany. While that is true, there is an important caveat intended to protect 14- and 15-year-olds from being exploited by significantly older partners: the sexual contact is only permitted if the partner is no older than 21. And the partner should not be in a position of authority (teacher, trainer, or providing 'guidance').
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/kurz-erklaert-sex-mit-minderjaehrigen_aid_655621.html
There is also a specific clause forbidding 'coercive' sex (Zwangslage) not just for 14-15 yo, but also for those of 16-17, so if the relationship is deemed to be exploitative to the detriment of the under-18yo there would also be grounds for legal intervention. My understanding (admittedly anecdotal) is that the closer together the ages of the two partners, the less likelihood of a relationship being deemed coercive.
@yackydar - Not exactly, even if one is older than 21 one can have legal sex with 14-yo. There is a strangely formulated additional condition about "misusing his inability to consent" or so, and, moreover, the victim has to suit.
pedophilia is this one phenomenon where a lot of very strong emotions come together, making a balanced assessment of what is going on very difficult. There is the fact you are dealing with children. The assumption they can not want this kind of relationship. The implicit belief that they are coerced. The general feeling that pedophiles are exploiting the object of their desire...
I tend to lean towards the position that it is, indeed, a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality. Perhaps it is caused (or at the very least triggered) by specific childhood circumstances, but I do not believe it is something that can be genuinely unlearned, at most constrained (which rarely leads to a lasting outcome)
However the world today, progressive as it may be, is not ready to "accept" it as an orientation. We are having enough issues with dealing with homo-sexuality - that battle seems to be over its zenith, but still significant parts of society are uneasy with it - to put it mildly. A significant part of people still would prefer not to see homosexuals kissing in public, rear children together, and so on. And this is between consenting adults...
So even if science tomorrow would come with unequivocal proof that pedophiles are "born that way" (or at least have certain genetic combinations that pre-dispose them to becoming pedophiles) it will take some generations to accept this, if it ever happens, given that it is, after all, children that are the target of their lust.
But the problem with this whole article is that it's not whether or not paedophilia is a sexual orientation, natural, etc. that's the real point at issue.
It doesn't matter if they're 'born that way' or not. The point is that no child deserves to have their life ruined by being their victim.
I know a woman who committed suicide because she was systematically sexually abused as a child by members of her famiy. it destroyed her entire life - also ruined the lives of her children, who lost their mother to suicide after a lifetime of terrible depression and her being in and out of psychiatric hospitals, and even their children, who never knew their grandmother.
All because some [expletive deleted] molested her when she was a child. No one has the right to do that to anyone else and it doesn't matter one bit whether their sexual desires are 'inborn' or 'learned'.
Why everyone brings homosexuality into it as a comparison I don't know.
Homosexuality is generally not one person being in a position of power and persuading the other less powerful person into it by means of coercion. Because surely most people are aware of their sexuality by the age of 16?
Drawing any parallels is discourteous to gay people.
@silverchain - A tragedy about your friend.
Sometimes I think the two sides of this issue talk past each other. Chances seem very high that your friend is one who was not at all a happy participant in what happened to her, and absolutely no one is saying that is ever OK. But when this article is written, the part about "if the child is willing" kind of goes by in a whisper -- and I suspect that's a small percentage of adult-child sex cases. And you are thinking of your friend and others, almost all of whom (we suspect) did not give anything resembling consent to what was going on, but not thinking of the ones (the few?) who do.
I'm a celibate pedophile, and think adult-child sexual activity is always wrong. The idea that it sometimes might not be harmful is a curiosity, but nothing to excuse the behavior.
Well, several people have mentioned "complexity" and this can be a complex issue...
For example, where two teens, one above the age of consent and one below--are involved. And the feelings of the children can be complex. And maybe pedophiles are hardwired to be attracted to children.
But I agree with Dan Savage on this issue. That abusive situations are usually fairly easy to distinguish from more complex situations where two teens are involved and that pedophiles need to be held responsible for controlling themselves.
Laws about mandatory reporting by various professionals in some countries / areas don't always make it easy for them to get help and we should think about that.
But the bottom line is that pedophilia does cause damage...
I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone's business and I think at least half of the people from my high school class were victims of serious sexual abuse, shown from newspaper reports of court cases against their family members and others. Not one of these people has ever had what seems like a decent quality of life. I have lived in several countries and have met / heard of very few sexual abuse victims whose lives turned out any differently.
Maybe there are a few exceptions somewhere in the world, but if there are I have never heard of them... Childhood sexual abuse messes people up--that is the uncomplicated bottom line.
I think that some might have / have had complex feelings towards their abusers, but I don't know any who carried any positive feelings over to adulthood. We have laws against underage sex so that kids don't have to deal with the consequences of making the wrong decision when they have complex feelings.
Excellent, informative and challenging to any presumptions, thank you.
I've been wrestling with this since the Saville stuff broke. I had my first bra aged ten, and my first period by 11. I was, so far as biology was concerned, an adult. Was I emotionally enough to cope with the demands of an adult relationship? I still doubt that I am, nearly 30 years later.
The conclusion I have reached is that age of consent, which is arbitrary, makes a diagnosis of paedophilia entirely based on cultural constructs. I feel that real paedophilia can only relate to those who are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Once you are physically adult it then becomes a different context, and is about emotional preparedness and the ability to negotiate/give informed consent.
adilady2, I think you're stating the obvious, and I don't mean to say that in a critical way...
1. The law seems to recognize this; in most places--although there are exceptions in the USA in particular--legal pursuit of post-pubescent people involved in relationships with older people is not nearly as enthusiastic as in cases involving pre-pubescent people.
The cases we hear most about are those involving adults in positions of power, like priests and teachers. And for good reason. As a university professor whose colleagues have sometimes been involved in relationships with much younger people, I have seen myself how destructive these relationships can be for a younger person who is accustomed to seeing his/her partner as an authority figure.
2. And I would guess that a majority of people experience sexuality at a young age, either physically or mentally. This is what muddies the waters and leads us to these conversations where people debate the "complexity" of this issue.
Focusing on post-pubescent people, those arbitrary cultural constructs may be arbitrary, but I think they are important because they define what we think of as normal.
I know of few people who have been involved in relationships at a young age with much older people who have done as well for themselves in terms of happiness, relationship stability, and career success as perhaps they might have...
Whether this is related to shame or other emotional issues, being controlled by the older person, or simply not having enough time to focus on studying, making friends, and personal development, I don't know. But it does seem to be a general pattern.
@bzz77 - Absolutely the law does yes, and you are absolutely right, the imbalance of power can often be the destructive result. Now if only the media could be made to understand the difference.
I'm not sure where you are in the world, but there was an incident here 10 years or so ago when, thanks to the mass media whipping up a moral panic a paediatrician was attacked because people didn't understand the word...
Female bodies continue to grow and develop throughout their teens. You were a mature adult perhaps by the social standards of a couple centuries ago, but not biologically.
What this (very good) article is basically saying is that the acceptability of sexual preferences is a matter of social fashion. Paedophilia, or anything suggestive of it, now arouses feelings of horror. In the 19th century, this was clearly not so: Lewis Carroll not only took photographs of naked children (not his own), but wrote letters to people he'd met in the street congratulating them on their charming children, and enquiring about the possibility of meeting them again. There is no suggestion whatever that he would have engaged in any physical sexual activity with them, and he was not regarded as a pervert. In a completely different way, sexual activity with children, as this article points out, was on the agenda of the libertarian movement of the 1960s, and the German Green Party, in its early days, actively campaigned for its legalization. Conversely, homosexuality, which until quite recently aroused general hatred, horror or at best pity, is now seen as not only socially okay, but as somehow normal. I have seen so many social fashions come and go (in my childhood for example I was taught to say 'negro', because 'black man' was 'very rude') that I have become resigned to them. But by recognizing them for what they are, the more objective members of society can at least try to keep the debate on an even keel.
How would you know?
In the word of O. Henry, philoprogenitiveness - well, mebbe ...
It's good that this is being discussed and the Paedophile Information Exchange and it's association with the NCCL mentioned.
I think it's not difficult to find out how the victims have been affected - by simply listening to them and engaging with them, something that has historically not been done.
Personally I don't accept that there is such a person as a paedophile, someone who just has an attraction to children and I consider them all child abusers or molesters or rapists. It is hard to convey just how manipulative abusers can be and how easy it is to get drawn into their view without even realising it. Giving any credence to the notorious O'Carroll is not the best evidence.
As regards violence - the article mentions that some believe that those they call paedophiles are not as violent as those they call child molesters. How do they know? So often the testimony of the victims is watered down even if the abuse is believed the extent of the violence, threats and coercion are not fully accepted.
On the issue of female abusers, one of the commonly held beliefs, which is a myth in reality, is that it is somehow different to male abuse, even not so serious some believe. It has been claimed that mothers who sexually abuse their children are too involved with them and see them as an extension of themselves. Actually women abusers can be as violent as men and do as much emotional damage and are driven by the desire to hurt, degrade and dominate.
Many have found it hard to accept that my mother was violent as well as sexually abusive and cruel. The article says that some kids said aspects of their relationship to the abuser was 'positive' in some ways. Our mother was positive towards us in that she insisted we get a good education, we always had to behave well and be kind to outsiders but none of that positivity dilutes the violence of the sexual assaults or the damage it did.
You write:
But then you add:
Why does the opaque nature of these incidents support your viewpoint but not its opposite?
@yalebird - hello. Sorry but I just do not understand your reply.
My post was written in a hurry and wasn't that great.
My contention is that experts who work in prisons and secure hospitals with abusers don't also work with their victims so only get one side of the story. It may not be strictly speaking illegal to work with both but most professionals can't be therapist to both victim and perpetrator so they cannot hear the victim's point of view.
@lostgirl - My point was, if child abuse and paedophilia are poorly understood due to skewed perspectives, why is this necessarily a reason to be in favor of the "they are all child abusers or molesters or rapists" position?
If you ask me, the information is skewed in another way: we don't have easy access to paedophiles who haven't raped, because in their current situation they would never volunteer that information. Even putting aside your claim that we mostly only get the abusers' side of the story (a claim I would dispute), the abusers whose story we get are of a specific sub-section of paedophiles, and as a result I think we have next to no knowledge about how that sub-section relates to the larger category of paedophiles in general.
I agree that more research is needed...but in my personal experience I know of only horrible, life-long adverse consequences for the child who has been molested. Yes relative ages of consent may vary according to the century and type of society but power imbalance is always an indication that the practice is wrong.
However I do not agree with witch hunts of the pedophile...it only takes society back to the attitudes of the dark ages but convicted pedophiles have to be monitored if released. In a small community in the past where everyone knew each other, this would have happened.
ClareLondon,
Impossible not to comment on your comments which mention Anglo-Saxon men sleeping with 'very small framed Japanese women'. Well, I am one of those white men who married a Japanese woman - who, as it happened, had larger hips than previous Anglo-Saxon girlfriends, which are even larger after having children. She was never dainty or passive & is not the Orientalist Stereotype you paint, but I find your tone somewhat disdainful of a large group of people out here. You insinuate that going to bed with what you term a tiny (in your eyes, and you don't give a measurement for your wild statement) ) Japanese adult is akin to be 'rather like fucking a child'.
I'm not sure what you think is 'tiny', but would it be 'Kylie Minogue' tiny - would it be 'Winona Ryder' tiny? Have the past and present male partners of these Anglo Saxon shorties 'fuck(ed) children' and not realised it? I bet Nick Cave is re-thinking who he is now, or will, when his dalliance with Kylie has been re-considered to place him in Claire London's Paedo-Race-Height Spectrum.
Johnny Depp - did you know what you were doing?!
Re-think your sweeping statements.
According to you, Japanese women are dainty, passive, maidenly and small-framed. Some are - and by a strange coincidence, so are a large number of women in Europe. Some (whisper) are passive as a means to lure or dupe their man, and 'hey presto', soon after, the woman inside emerges - the man is captured by a living, breathing adult female. If the man falls only for the outside frame, buxom or tiny, then he's a dope ...
I'm a short arse though (5 foot 7 and my wife is 5 foot 2). I have a friend who is 6 foot 4 and his Japanese wife isn't much taller than mine. You can never tell, but I bet he (my friend - who, despite being a close friend,I don't know his penis size) has got turned on by her as much as with average-sized, large and tall women he has liked, because, as we men have been told for years, "size isn't everything".
(Whisper) - It's true - some men choose partners because of mutual enjoyment of other topics other than physical pleasure - even, I'd wager, those Giant Anglo-Saxons who sin with 'Tiny' 'Japanese' adult women.
Let's return to your sweeping statement:
"I have several times wondered just how turned on the man gets when in bed with a tiny Japanese woman - rather like fucking a child, I would have thought, for a large Anglo-Saxon male, in terms of relative size. "
It is you with the unnatural attention to size, as with the below:
"I've seen plenty of examples of very large anglo-saxon men, some who I have known to have larger than average penises..."
I'm not sure "size" preferences have any more than a superficial association with paedophilia, also of course, in the case you pose it works both ways, doesn't it? Some women fantasise about large guys and being overwhelmed in bed. Acknowledged to a lesser extent are guys who fantasise about "large" women (and I don't just mean fat!)...
I would say these are just tastes, such as preferring blondes or long legs, and not particularly related to more primal sexual impulses.
Sorry, but this is just BS. Paedophilia is a mental illness, bought on by childhood sexual traumas, and possibly exposure to images. It is a well known paedophile tactic to soften their victims up with drugs and pornography, in an attempt normalise this behaviour with their victims. A paedophile is like an addict who can't control his impulses, and like a drug addict will justify his actions with excuses like the ones listed above. Any attempt to classify this as a sexual orientation would a) be very bad news for homosexuals, and b) be a boom for the child prostitution business.
This is simply not the view taken by those who work with paedophiles once they've been convicted. Paedophilia is notoriously resistant to being treated as a mental illness, and as you note elsewhere in your post, in terms of the activity of a paedophile, it's more similar to an addiction than a mental illness. Certainly this is the model generally used: that there "is no cure, only control". I've never seen any evidence that childhood sexual trauma has been clearly identified as the cause of paedophilia either; but then, 'childhood sexual trauma' isn't at all specific, which empties this claim of any useful content; how would we go about verifying/falsifying it?
Thank you Professor.
You've just proved why it is so difficult to have an intelligent debate about the subject.
I disagree. If an adult has an idea or thought about children, such that they're sexually interesting, that's just a thought or idea. If it's maintained over time it becomes an opinion. It's never an illness. It's just the brain indulging its limitless capacity to interpret the world as it chooses.
If the thoughts remain private, and are not acted upon, a third party might never know they've been held at all.
It would be an insult to those with real mental illnesses to extend that category to cover child rapists, who don't only have the thought, but act upon it.
Interesting article, with some difficult questions and opinions in it. However I believe that the core issue is consent-mature consent, I am not convinced that a child, who can be so easily manipulated emotionally can ever truly give this consent.
I am in absolutely no doubt - a child can't give this consent.
@JuliaBtS -
I totally disagree. I gave consent at the age of 11 to a young girl about 16 and I knew exactly what I was doing and why I wanted it and it never bothered me then, and it doesn't bother me now.
I continued to be sexually active from that point on with same age and older people. Not a single problem. Not any 'trauma'.
So you simply can't make a blanket statement on this issue.
@Kulturtrager - good for you, but I can't see how vulnerable children can be protected without blanket restrictions based on age.
Do you really expect profound insight into human psychology from psychiatrists and other academic experts? There are perfectly coherent explanations of the dynamics of paedophilia in the various schools of depth psychology. You might not want to consider the merits of the case for reverse Oedipal urges, fine, but don't pretend they don't exist, and that people who are more at home statistically analysing the behaviour of rats are the only 'experts'.
" Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults"
Savile was a member of MENSA, so I find the above quote difficult to believe.
@Drumboy:
Why? There's no contradiction between the claims of the research and Savile's case.
Why? The research 'suggests' the claim and also says the 10% is 'average'. No where does it say that figure and claim was absolute.
Let me add some helpful emphasis.
Now, as to whether sexual contact when there is a vast disparity in age is harmful by default (or not), it has to be remembered that in some cultures girls at age 14, or younger, are considered 'ripe' for marriage - at the onset of menstruation or earlier. I wanted to have sex at 13 - or at least, I thought I did. I wanted romance, really. But by 14 I definitely would have had sex readily had it been socially acceptable to do so. In the end I lost my virginity at 18, after years of refusing a boyfriend of my own age who was frantically in love with me, but only because I got very romantic and decided it had to be 'the one' before I 'did it'. Then a pal of mine took a holiday job after A levels and shagged just anyone the second she got the chance and, impressed, I did exactly the same. Which was very sad for my very kind, loyal and desperately loving boyfriend. I also think that the instinct at 13/14 is to admire and fancy older 'boys' and young men and, you know, the fact is that when you start having sex at 17+, you are invariably going to be having sex with a whole load of men who just want to fuck you and leave you, callously and without any emotional connection. There is something to be said, therefore, for starting to 'get to know about sex' and relationships a few years earlier, to get a head start on the whole caper. It does, of course, interfere vastly with concentration during what would be school years when you're supposed to be passing exams, but realistically whether you're actually having sex or just having romances your hormones are all over the shop anyway, so it probably would make little difference.
So - I would argue that one of the problems with the less nasty side of 'paedophilia', which is young girls, is slightly distorted by our insistence on calling girls of 13-14 'children'. They are - and they are not. And these days, without fucked up food, and god knows what's in the water, girls can start menstruating as early as 9 and to start developing breasts and pubic hair. Instinctively it's hard not to believe a girl is ready to be sexually active once her body 'says so'.
Then there is the issue of emotional abuse when, as in the midlands case, men start to control and abuse a very young mind. But if you start to address that issue, you have also to address the very unequal status of women across our society and to recognise that advertising and the general extreme over-sexualisation of our culture is a reason men seem to think a girl or a woman is automatically an object belonging to their penis by rights and come what may they will exercise that right.
At the sharp and nasty end of 'paedophilia', when a man is double, three times the age of a child who is well under 10 or younger still - this is clearly an appalling crime.
I have to say that in the Jimmy Saville case it seems to me that, in my view, people who are saying that 'back then that was the culture', easy sex, groupies and no questions asked are really not manipulating the truth - that really, clearly, was how it was. Very young girls dressed to look sexy and sophisticated and several years older than they were, they idolised pop stars and made every effort to fuck them. I do think that in that context a young girl being old enough to travel of public transport and get herself near a pop star and try to get herself fucked is making an informed decision. Or at least was, back then. The pill had only been out a few years, pop culture had arrived, hippies came and went, fashions were changing radically every 5 minutes and sex was everywhere, people were rampant, released. Sex was 'free' and easily available. I do think that in that context the witchhunt now is misplaced and unfair.
Except, obviously, in the Jimmy Saville case where he raped girls - outrageously. He was clearly a shit, getting off on his own power. He was raping to express his power over people. Yet another sociopath in the public arena.
The problem arises - as it does with children, as it does with young girls in any context, as it does with women, as it does with the desperately sad, scary case of the Indian woman which we're all reeling from reading about - the problem is forced sex.
By definition, any children under, say, 14, cannot be deemed to be able to give consent. And because there is the issue of our over-sexualised society and the ambivalence young girls feel the response they see in men, I suppose one must continue to say that the law should remain as it is and that anyone under 16 has to be considered to be a child and sex with them is unlawful. By anyone. This does go against the natural inclination of young girls to have sex - but it does at least draw a clear line.
Thoughtful post and I agree with most of what you say. The problem is that many girl are having "consensual" sex at aged 14 and indeed younger with boys their own age or a year or so older or younger. They are sexually active and willing and at no point in their lives do they feel they were taken advantage of or abused. And that is the crucial element. An adult may be able to have a similarly non abusive relationship but the risk that a younger person may be unaware of the elements at play in such an arrangement and it may damage them means there is no argument that makes that risk worth taking.
As for children being sexless or not. I was a completely sexless child till the age of 12. I found boys/men cool but in terms of romance or sex disgusting. I didn't have any attractions of a romantic or sexual nature before then. I didn't have a crush on any teachers, fellow children or even want to remotely kiss or hold hands with anyone. I am sure many children may be different but the fact that many children will be completely sexless means that allowing children to discover their own sexuality is the best way to go.
As for whether paedophilia or ephebophilia are intrinsic or can be changed, it's a secondary discussion. One which is very important but which is not relevant to the main issues. I personally don't think they can be changed although I doubt it is a genetic trait. Life circumstances can make you just as unchangeable as genetic traits. But yes we should have some type of system where those wanting to prevent damage in society can come forward without immediate persecution.
@Anon77 - That is pretty much what I think about this
@Anon77 - I think society kind of plays the odds here. Yeah, some 13-year-old girls go for an older man with enthusiasm, but probably a lot more get coerced into it. I see the age of consent as important legally. If you're 18 and get raped, it can be your word against the man's, and since we really, really don't like to convict innocent people, men often have to be let off even when they're mostly guilty. The age of consent solves that problem for young teens-- if they had sex and she says it wasn't consensual, then it wasn't. No further doubt. Then we just need to add in some prosecutor's discretion. If a 13-year-old says it was pretty much consensual and the story fits, then there should be no prosecution. The message to men of "don't mess with jailbait" is a good one. Horny 13-year-old girls can express their desires with boys closer to their age -- or with men who are willing to take a huge risk.
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment