This American Life: Tarred and Feathered -- Act Two: Help Wanted - Non-Offending Pedophiles

[moriah]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=2#play

There's one group of people that is universally tarred and feathered in the United States and most of the world. We never hear from them, because they can't identify themselves without putting their livelihoods and reputations at risk. That group is pedophiles. It turns out lots of them desperately want help, but because it's so hard to talk about their situation it's almost impossible for them to find it. Reporter Luke Malone spent a year and a half talking to people in this situation, and he has this story about one of them. More of Luke Malone's reporting on this topic will appear next month on Medium.com.

http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story?c=reccon1 -- Upworthy link

[GOPee]

1. We had a neighbor that suffered from this scourge.

He too didn't act upon his urges, after an early attempt got him identified at age 13. That was his words, and confirmed after his death by suicide at age 27. He literally ate himself to death, weighing 600 + lbs, but he took pills to hasten the process.

It was tragic to watch him sit on his porch watching us kids running around outside. We were all warned about him throughout the neighborhood, and the kids would taunt and make fun of him and his mom would run them off. I felt sorry for him, but was afraid to get too close to him.

[LeftyMom]

2. Are you fucking for real?

[moriah]

3. If people want the help, then surely we owe it to the kids they don't want to hurt to try.

Though another huge takeaway for me was the extremely wide availability of child pornography to minors and how that warps a kid to watch it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I agree 100% - People who due to no fault of their own who are tormented with ANY kind of

potentially destructive urges - who do not want to act on such urges are doing the right thing and considering the stigma a very brave thing in seeking help.

[msanthrope]

18. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If there is a way for paedophiles to get help

before they do harm, why not explore that?

[Gravitycollapse]

5. This is a very complicated subject and it deserves reasoned, calm discussion.

It isn't just a sexual attraction to children. It's not just the child's body that they find appealing. It is the easily had power over the child which drives the sexuality of many pedophiles.

But it is also very often a mixture of impaired intellectual and emotional faculties combined with other issues like past abuse where the latter often facilitates the former.

I think it is important, however, to draw a general distinction between the drive to act and the actual act itself. Pedophilia is not a form of psychosis. It isn't simply a mistake of a distorted reality. The will of the pedophile still plays a role.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. It isn't actually about "power", no.

It's a sexual orientation. There's increasing research in neurology that shows this; paedophiles appear to have faulty brain wiring. Functional MRI scans of the brains of paedophiles show abnormal response to stimuli and significantly less white matter (which is connective tissue between parts of the brain) than in non-paedophiles, as well as less grey matter in certain brain areas.

See for instance: http://www.dw.de/scientists-find-brain-differences-in-pedophiles/a-16305968

And here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/06/what-science-reveals-about-pedophilia.html

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Sexual attraction is not simply a singular biological urge. It isn't totally essential.

It is the product of potential predisposition with socialization. Furthermore, the real, actual expression of sexual attraction always, and I really do truly mean always, has some relation to power dynamics. Even in totally healthy individuals.

Even taking into account the physical differences in brain structure, it is difficult to know whether that is the product of inheritance or disturbances in early development.

What I'm saying is sexual attraction isn't just an on and off switch. We are social beings. And social and power relations play a role in the growth and expression of our sexuality.

Anyway, I'm off to bed since I work very early in the morning. I'll pick this up tomorrow afternoon.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Sociological bullshit, sorry

and it's not biological, it's neurological. These are somewhat different things. If socialisation were responsible for sexuality then one would not expect there to be as many gay and lesbian people as there are considering that society is very much oriented to heterosexuality.

And the differences in volume of grey matter and white matter are of such a kind and nature that they probably have their origins in utero; one can't say "inherited", as such, as it may not be the result of any genetic predisposition.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. given how little objective research has been done on this pariah subject - - It's doubtful that

anyone knows definitively the full causes of pedophilia. Although neurology with a possible genetic component is probably the closest thing there is to an explanation. There may be psychological issues and early childhood experiences that play a role. What is known for a certainty and beyond any shadow of a doubt is that no one in any conscious matter chooses to have those urges. Having such urges is not a matter of a desire to harm anyone. That notion was popular in the 80's and was ideologically driven by prosecutors seeking convictions - not scientists seeking answers. It's preposterous.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. There's been quite a bit of objective research, actually

Most of it in the past two decades and focusing on the neurological aspect. The psychological model of paedophilia as the result of a "cycle of abuse" has been very thoroughly discredited.

See the following for instance:

...many experts see it as a biologically rooted condition that does not change — like a sexual orientation — thanks largely to a decade of research by Dr. James Cantor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Cantor’s team has found that pedophiles share a number of physical characteristics, including differences in brain wiring. It’s now thought that about 1 to 5 per cent of men are pedophiles, meaning they are primarily attracted to children.

(snip)

His team has found that pedophiles share many physical characteristics. They are shorter, on average, than other men. They are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous. Their IQs are about 10 to 15 points lower. Finally, they are more prone to childhood head injuries — which Cantor chalks up to a natural clumsiness.

These physical characteristics are determined before birth, so the explanation for pedophilia must be in part prenatal, Cantor says.

“It’s become harder and harder to explain pedophilia on just (early childhood events). It’s either purely biological or a mix of biological and experiential. But pure experience can’t explain these data.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html

See also here for an fMRI study that was able to identify paedophiles from stimulus responses on brain scans with 95% accuracy: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1107448

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. thank you. Those are interesting articles

[Gravitycollapse]

19. The level of homoeroticism in most culture is immense.

Likely because human beings are not naturally, read biologically, preprogrammed to possess a strictly confined sexuality. We in fact possess homoerotic urges that, despite an massive schema of repression, leaves an impact on society.

The argument that homosexuality wouldn't exist if it was anything but biologically predetermined is catastrophically short sighted and unintentionally offensive both towards factuality and homosexuality in general. I think the desire to pin sexuality, especially homosexuality, solely in biology is an unhealthy response to, and a desire to unconditionally condemn, the "choice" and sin arguments put forth by conservatives.

It puts us in a comfortable position to say that one is born gay or straight. It is an effective means of shutting down the opposition. But that doesn't mean it's correct. Correctness and effectiveness are not the same thing.

As I've said before, these discussions need a calm, reasoned discussion. Not unfounded utterances like "sociological bullshit" tossed around.

I think one of the things you don't seem to want to address is that, despite the evidence you've produced, it doesn't circumvent the possibility, and what I think is the reality, of spurious connections. For instance, the propensity for pedophiles to be shorter than average or left handed or less intelligent may actually speak to how these characteristics change the way an individual is handled by society. Or, at the very least, there is an intermingling of inborn and learned factors. It's not purely one or the other as you seem to suggest.

Medical bodies are still trying to determine the role of biology and sociology on the matter. Consensus does not exist. Even if you want to believe otherwise.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Quit posting bullshit and I won't call you on it, then.

Please note that homosexuality is not bisexuality. I have said nothing about bisexuality. And all indications are that homosexuality as such has a primarily biological basis resulting in specific neurological diffferences and in which hormone exposure in utero probably plays a very large part.

Things like handedness? Those are neurological differentiations that have their origins in utero. They are not the result of socialisation. Sexual attraction is also not something which is the result of socialisation; one doesn't choose to be sexually attracted to whomever one is attracted to, it simply happens. We are talking hre of a primary sexual attraction. (Please note also that in the context of this discussion it is not at all useful to conflate "paedophile" and "child molester" as they are not synonyms.)

[Gravitycollapse]

22. I figured a few points would need to be explained. And here we are...

Socialization does not imply choice. It in fact is the exact opposite of individual will; socialized traits are the product of a form of learning which results in the expression of characteristics without true knowledge of the system of learning or its consequence.

So, as you've stated, no one chooses to be gay or straight or bisexual or pansexual or polysexual and so on. That statement is not in conflict with the concept of socialization.

You've changed your tone slightly and I've picked up on that. Now it's a matter of probability and origins, rather than simply the product of. That is a big difference. Hormone exposure has been shown in studies to play a role in sexual orientation. It is not the only factor, as I'm sure you're well aware. And it is not only biology which plays a part in sexual orientation or handedness.

A child molester is a pedophile who has acted on his or her urges. I'm fully aware of that distinction. Just as I hope you're aware of the difference between the libido and sexual orientation.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Condescending, much?

It is in fact only biology which plays a role in handedness. One is not left-handed as a result of socialisation. One may be left-handed and forced to write and such with one's right hand, but that's not the same thing. You're completely and totally wrong about this, sorry. ("the will of the paedophile plays a role"? Not so much. Not when you have people who have a sexual atraction to children that disgusts them and they know is wrong and they deliberately repress; "will" doesn't play any part in that.)

[Gravitycollapse]

24. You are the one acting so overly defensive.

If you are reading condescension into my words, it is because you are intimidated by what I'm saying. Which is your problem, not mine.

Like I said, you've changed your tone. And now you aren't even defending your previous argument regarding sexual orientation as being ascribed at birth.

I want to be clear here. You don't have science on your side if you're going to make the argument that sexual orientation is solely the product of inborn factors. The research suggests multiple causal links dealing with genetics, hormone exposure in utero, order of birth and a litany of social factors.

This topic demands more study, especially regarding social factors, rather than total decisiveness. Both sides of the debate are guilty of closemindedness; albeit one is much worse than the other.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. You don't have science on your side if you suggest left-handedness is the product of socialisation.

Or for that matter that a sexual attraction to prepubescent children is a product of socialisation.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. You can cling to your handedness argument if you want...

And I'll agree that it is more the product of inborn factors than anything else. But I don't think you quite understood my initial point on left handedness. Which is that society may treat someone who is left handed differently in such a way that it combines with other forms of socialization to play a role in pedophilia. Or, even more probable is that left handedness is associated with some other physical characteristic which is subject to some form of discrimination. These studies are often heavy on correlation and light on causal links. Often because the link simply isn't well understood.

But I digress, sexual orientation is massively more complex than handedness. And it has many more paths to socialization. Human sexuality pervades almost every aspect of society. It is hardly a stretch to believe that it has a substantive impact on individual sexual identities. I agree with Freud on this subject. We likely are born with only a vague sexual constitution which is then cultivated one way or another through repressive and expressive forces. This is all done at a very young age. By the time a child grows into adolescence, the identity is generally set in.

[moriah]

17. That's what Germany's Prevention Project Dunkelfeld emphasizes, will power.

That everyone can control their actions, if not their thoughts or feelings.

But like the kid in the radio broadcast (and I'm still likely to call a 19-year-old a "kid&quot said, I don't think it's easily broken down into psychological reasons like "he was abused", "he can't deal with kids his own age", etc. When I was targeted, I don't know if the then 22-year-old thought that my 13-year-old self was less powerful or intimidating, or if he actually thought he was in love with me. What I do know is that he'd befriended me, and we'd been friends for a year, before he crossed the boundaries and made me realize he had thoughts about me that weren't healthy. Plenty of times where he likely stopped himself. If he'd been able to get help, had someone been putting spots on TV saying the help was available, he might not have hurt me.

[Coventina]

7. Oh boy....here we go....

These threads usually go quite well......

But, bedtime for me. I'll check back in to see if we've broken 100 by morning....

[moriah]

11. I thought the radio interview was thought-provoking.

And if someone listens to the full 30 minutes and *doesn't* agree that people who want help to not hurt kids should have it available to them.... I dunno. Maybe 30 minutes of listening to an abuse survivor would have been more effective. What was interesting (to use a word mildly) to me was hearing his reaction to seeing abuse on a child outside his age of attraction, and that being what "opened his eyes" to the fact what he was looking at was *wrong*.

It was extremely disturbing.

Germany has something they call Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, and a website in English that may help someone. But I don't think Internet forums and projects should be the mainstay of treatment when websites got a lot of people into the mess they are in to begin with (to me there's little doubt that viewing that pornography at 14 truly warped the young adult interviewed). It'd be like the inmates running the asylum.

Still, Germany's website is here: https://www.dont-offend.org/

[Coventina]

12. I'm sure it was.

It's a real problem that needs thoughtful discussion.

However, that never seems to happen here.

A certain segment of posters (and the population at large) conveniently forget that even the perpetrators of the worst crimes are human beings with human rights. And, to make the situation even more difficult, are often former victims of these horrible crimes.

I've just seen threads about this subject turn really, really ugly and anyone who has any concept of compassion for these folk are either guilty of the crimes themselves, or are somehow insensitive to their victims.

I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.

[moriah]

14. I think treatment should be available regardless of offender status.

Right now, it's nearly non-existent even for offenders. Some might think that's the best place to start, but I disagree. Germany's project has emphasized that EVERY person is able to control their actions, even if they cannot control their thoughts or feelings. A stoplight system for identifying problem behaviors. Education to overcome misinformation learned online and cognitive distortions that make offending more likely. It's under the supervision of therapists, instead of other people suffering, so those cognitive distortions do not take over and there is someone there to keep it in check. A huge barrier to treatment effectiveness in any mental health or addiction treatment plan is unwillingness of the patient. It would be interesting to see treatment outcomes for people who actively sought the help vs were court-ordered to do so.

If that's showing compassion for anyone, to me it's showing compassion for future victims so they may not have to go through the trauma that I and many others experienced.

[Coventina]

15. ITA. And, it sounds like it could be a promising approach.

And, I apologize for my own knee-jerk reaction that this thread would automatically become a flame-war.

I'm pleased to see I was wrong.

In the past, this subject has been approached as if compassion were a zero-sum game: any compassion for pedophiles was seen as resulting in less compassion for their victims. Therefore, expressing any kind of concern for those with this abnormality was seen as being "pro-pedophile".

It made for some less-than-admirable threads......

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. heard the episode. hope they get help b4 they commit crimes against kids

[BainsBane]

27. It's a difficult issue

and some people are unjustly caught up in a system that is designed to protect the public, as the first poster in this thread pointed out. Those cases are tragic.

I tend to believe in an offender represents a danger to the community, he should remain in jail. Longer sentences for repeat offenders might help do away with this tendency to continue to punish those who aren't reoffending even after their sentence is up. Obviously it's complicated because it's difficult to know if someone is reoffending. I also think authorities need to be more careful about who gets put on those lists. While a 19 yr old who had sex with a 16 yr old is breaking the law in certain jurisdictions, it is not an ongoing threat to the community unless he continues to prey on underage girls throughout his life.

Additionally, half of US prison population is made up of non-violent drug offenders. Start treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter, and there will be more room in prisons for those who truly represent a danger to society.

[DirkGently]

28. No question some people are "wired" differently.

One of the big dumb-dumb problems we can never seem to get around is the difference between reasons for things, and excuses. People may have "drives" to do harmful things that go far beyond a simple moral or ethical choice or a matter of "willpower."

But any time we try to dig into the reasons for the most horrific human behaviors, we get a wave of bullshit about being soft on the evildoers or whatever. People don't like to contemplate the possibility that something beyond someone's control could put them in the category of the untouchable. It's far easier to write people off as monsters and destroy them.

We'd do a lot better by everyone if we'd get past that enough to actually look into what drives the most disturbing human behaviors and find ways to mitigate them, instead of waiting for something horrible to happen and trying to somehow punish it out of existence after the fact.

Our sex drives are powerful, and also seem especially susceptible to modification. Some of us are straight. Some are gay. Some are somewhere in between. Others have fetishes or whatever. All of that's fine, of course, except for the flavors that can hurt someone.

As long as we're recognizing that people can be different in all kinds of ways that are fine and none of our business, we ought to be able to recognize the differences that do threaten harm to others, and may consitute a condition or a disease that can be treated before something evil actually does occur.