Firstly, there is no straightforward test - genetic, psychological or 'psychic' - by which one can readily identify a paedophile. As with other aspects of personality, there may well be a genetic component predisposing to paedophilia - but, as with homosexuality, the belief that a single 'on/off' gene is responsible is naive and simplistic. As has been said already, untangling genetic 'loading' from early childhood experiences is difficult in the extreme, and would require long-term prospective studies (like Bowlby's famous Isle of Wight study of attachment). Similarly, attempting to draw general conclusions from single cases - particularly high-profile celebrity cases - doesn't particularly illuminate the situation.
'Brass Eye' satirised the common 'tabloid hysteria' reaction and highlighted the double-standards inherent in the 'sex monster' stereotyping. This lazy, knee-jerk demonising externalises the problem of paedophilia as Other, a lone predatory bogeyman existing (we try to convince ourselves) on the edge of 'civilised' society - and most definitely Not In My Back Yard, thankyou very much. More importantly, it draws fire away from the larger issue of child abuse and muddies any attempt to debate the subject in any sort of rational manner. 'Brass Eye' emphasised (brutally) the need, as a society, to take some measure of responsibility for our choice to sexualise the portrayal of children in the general media: if we allow the likes of kiddie beauty pageants and child starlets, we ought to face up to the consequences and discuss ways to deal with it, rather than make it all Someone Else's Problem.
I agree that there needs to be clarification of what constitutes child pornography and that it's important to root out those who produce and distribute it. I disagree, however, that the problem lies predominantly with The Men At The Top; I think that's just another way of externalising things, albeit from a different, more conspiracy-themed angle. I think we need to acknowledge, as a society, that the bulk of child sexual abuse lies within the family.
I'm not entirely sure how one balances issues of civil freedom with child protection, but here're some personal opinions:
1) The tabloid furore is hugely unhelpful, as is the inflammatory and histrionic 'sex beast' terminology. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by individuals who don't fit the profile for 'exclusive paedophilia', we need to foster a climate in which they a) know that abusing children is utterly wrong, but b) feel able to admit to their sexual desires/impulses and seek guidance without the fear that admitting to it will result in automatic stigmatisation and lynching. After all, if the majority of child sex abusers are not driven primarily by paedophilia, there's perhaps scope for helping them modify their behaviour - especially if they feel able to come forward and seek help before actual physical abuse takes place.
Going a stage further, if someone admits to having already abused a child, there should, ideally, be an attempt to assess and quantify the nature and extent of the abuse in a relatively calm manner (and, crucially, whether whether the individual's abused before). Needless to say, I'm not sure how such a climate could be achieved without accusations that society is somehow 'excusing' child abusers by not immediately stringing them up, etc., etc.
2) The main (some would say only) predictor of future dangerousness is previous offending and, in this context, repeat child abusers should be taken extremely seriously. Individuals who repeatedly molest children are more likely to fit the criteria for 'exclusive paedophiles' and, as such, are likely to be far more resistant to attempts at 'treatment'; the penalties for repeat offending should, therefore, be appropriately harsh, in order to deter these individuals from physically acting on their fantasies (and I'm talking prison sentences along rape/murder lines). Difficult to achieve, I know, but if society could somehow draw a distinction between a) those who merely fantasise, b) 'one-off' perpetrators of child abuse (in those whose circumstances are somehow extenuating - they're severely depressed, say, or borderline learning-disabled) and c) more resistant repeat-offenders, rather than tarring all with the same, indelible 'paedophile' brush, we might better communicate the bottom line that the actual desire itself isn't necessarily a crime, but acting on the desire to have sex with children is absolutely wrong.
3) There will always be those individuals who masturbate over Pampers ads, or whatever - stuff we might call 'incidental' pornography. We need to be clear that this, in itself, is not a crime. Producing material which exploits children sexually, however, is - and we need, as a society, to try to decide where to draw this line. I've no idea how this is to be achieved, but the first aim should be to encourage rational debate on the subject.
The theme underlying all this is the need to hammer home an unequivocal understanding that, while one can fantasise all one likes, actually, physically having sex with a child is wrong and will be punished - but by law rather than by lynch-mob.
So, one episode and the abuser's closely monitored for a while, psychologically, with (depending on the specifics of the situation) an effort being made to help him/her modify the offending behaviour. Two strikes, and (again, obviously depending on individual circumstances, blah blah) they're seen as a repeat offender with much harsher punishment, likely imprisonment.
Naive? Over-general? Impossible to implement? Too much emphasis on 'treatment' and not punitive enough? Too much focus on the management of the offender at the expense of the victim's 'need' for protection or even 'revenge'? Maybe. At least it'd be a start. What do others think?
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh ] |
Laila was putting words into my mouth and twisting my statements around a bit. Not fair play. I said that pedophilia shouldn't be accepted due to lack of consent of the child, and Laila took this as a pro "pedophilian" (yes, wtf?) statement when it was nothing of that sort. It was the direct opposite, in fact. But somehow Laila decided that I was waving a pedophile pride flag around this board or something. Not to mention the final dance of calling me a pedophile. 
