#1 ·
Watching this latest culture war between liberal permissivists and conservative submissivists over sex education in schools, I find it interesting how both sides view these two phenomena.
For conservatives, only pedophiles would dare put the words "sexuality" and "children" in the same sentence. This stems from the religious dogma that children—being "innocent"—are essentially asexual and therefore sinless, devoid of any sexual thoughts. A huge chunk of the criticism against introducing sex ed (specifically in 5th grade) is built on this premise. I guess that’s why Kinsey remains such a thorn in the side of American Christian radicals; he had the audacity to actually study childhood sexuality, effectively profaning what Christians believe should remain sacred.
But what I actually find most interesting is that both conservatives and liberals hold almost identical views regarding pedophilia.
The modern image of a pedophile usually depicts a psychopathic rapist, complete with all the cinematic tropes: the van with tinted windows, the basement with heavy metal doors and chains.
I remember those early media appearances by Gordana Buljan Flander where she described the personality traits of pedophiles. According to her, it might be someone who is mostly nonviolent and gets along well with kids—someone who knows how to "get down on their level"—but possesses one socially unacceptable trait: they are sexually aroused by prepubescent children. To achieve contact and satisfy that urge, they typically resort to various manipulations through play ("this is our little secret you can't tell anyone").
I’m curious about people who have studied this phenomenon, whether through literature or clinical practice: what are these individuals actually like? Are they the psychopathic aggressors portrayed in the media, or should we strictly distinguish between sadists—who use children merely as objects for humiliation and torment because they are weaker than adults—and, so to speak, actual pedophiles, who may love children, but perhaps a bit too much, expressing that love through socially unacceptable sexual means.
Another question that crossed my mind while thinking about this: how do we handle rehabilitation for children who were sexualized by adults "before their time"? In many interviews, child psychologists have mentioned that children who went through this show clear signs of excessive sexual permissiveness—a lack of shame, leading them to expose themselves in public or touch themselves and other children in intimate areas. Therefore, the therapist's "task" is to make the child realize that such behavior is a consequence of sexual abuse by an adult who had no right to act that way.
The problem and the paradox is that the trauma—the shame and embarrassment—often only surfaces at that point. An amoral cynic might argue that the actual abuse occurs during therapy itself, just to satisfy the imperatives of the superego and maintain socially acceptable behavior.
I have to admit, I wouldn't know how to answer an amoral cynic like that.
How do you see this paradox?
For conservatives, only pedophiles would dare put the words "sexuality" and "children" in the same sentence. This stems from the religious dogma that children—being "innocent"—are essentially asexual and therefore sinless, devoid of any sexual thoughts. A huge chunk of the criticism against introducing sex ed (specifically in 5th grade) is built on this premise. I guess that’s why Kinsey remains such a thorn in the side of American Christian radicals; he had the audacity to actually study childhood sexuality, effectively profaning what Christians believe should remain sacred.
But what I actually find most interesting is that both conservatives and liberals hold almost identical views regarding pedophilia.
The modern image of a pedophile usually depicts a psychopathic rapist, complete with all the cinematic tropes: the van with tinted windows, the basement with heavy metal doors and chains.
I remember those early media appearances by Gordana Buljan Flander where she described the personality traits of pedophiles. According to her, it might be someone who is mostly nonviolent and gets along well with kids—someone who knows how to "get down on their level"—but possesses one socially unacceptable trait: they are sexually aroused by prepubescent children. To achieve contact and satisfy that urge, they typically resort to various manipulations through play ("this is our little secret you can't tell anyone").
I’m curious about people who have studied this phenomenon, whether through literature or clinical practice: what are these individuals actually like? Are they the psychopathic aggressors portrayed in the media, or should we strictly distinguish between sadists—who use children merely as objects for humiliation and torment because they are weaker than adults—and, so to speak, actual pedophiles, who may love children, but perhaps a bit too much, expressing that love through socially unacceptable sexual means.
Another question that crossed my mind while thinking about this: how do we handle rehabilitation for children who were sexualized by adults "before their time"? In many interviews, child psychologists have mentioned that children who went through this show clear signs of excessive sexual permissiveness—a lack of shame, leading them to expose themselves in public or touch themselves and other children in intimate areas. Therefore, the therapist's "task" is to make the child realize that such behavior is a consequence of sexual abuse by an adult who had no right to act that way.
The problem and the paradox is that the trauma—the shame and embarrassment—often only surfaces at that point. An amoral cynic might argue that the actual abuse occurs during therapy itself, just to satisfy the imperatives of the superego and maintain socially acceptable behavior.
I have to admit, I wouldn't know how to answer an amoral cynic like that.
How do you see this paradox?