A Joe’s Take on Treating Child Sexual Abusers

I was a boy, and I was sexually abused in my family from the age of 11 or 12 to nearly 20. As a result, I might have a different perspective on how we should deal with abusers.

Zero tolerance, as expressed in most law, is an attempt by well-meaning legislators to capture that rarity which is the full-on pedophile. In that sense I say go for it and get those people into some kind of treatment.

The problem arises in that as disgusting as kiddy porn is, it's an after-the-fact response, sometimes years or decades after. By then it's far too late to help the child in question.

Then, of course, there's nations like Thailand who nod and wink as organized child abuse is traded on to increase tourist traffic. I don't buy for an instant that authorities in Thailand don't know who is running and controlling this appalling business or are completely unable to do anything about it. Mind you, it does draw true pedophiles as well as those who have fantasies. (And no, I don't understand what might cause those fantasies but as long as they aren't acted on I see no need to hunt those people down.)

The problem, as I said, with kiddie porn is that a response to it is after-the-fact rather than preventative.

As I said in my previous post, most abusers were abused themselves as children and come from within the circle of trusted adults and then, most often, from parents. To attack this head-on means exploding the myth of the nuclear family as some sort of perfect construction for the making and raising of children. In the United States and, to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe, this is well-ingrained and very well-defended.

Of course, there are professions that DO attract pedophiles and those who are in danger of repeating what happened to them. In no particular order they tend to be caring professions such as medicine, teaching, the clergy, therapists, police, coaching and, well, I'll let the reader complete the list. Any profession or trade that brings the pedophile in to near-constant contact with children where they can establish a trusted and trusting relationship with the child and its parents.

Each profession closes ranks around offenders, or has a history of that. The most obvious, for now, being the Roman Catholic Church. They're far from the only ones, though.

And each of these professions is surrounded by a mythology all their own, created by Hollywood or by themselves as wonderful, caring people who genuinely want to help their young charges and in the vast majority of cases they are. But amongst the angels there are devils.

So it means attacking the unattackable symbols of our society/civilization and I don't know of a single politician willing to take that one on.

Sending someone with a few pictures of child porn on their hard drive to jail for 10 years is akin to sending someone to the same jail for 10 years because they have an ounce or two of pot in their possession. In the former you aren't, in all likelihood, busting a true pedophile just as much as in the latter you haven't busted a dealer.

What abusers like my father needed and still need, and this is potential and actual abusers of both genders, is caring, non-judgmental treatment for exactly the reason I stated. They are very likely to be victims of abuse themselves and know no other way of expressing great affection. Jail isn't the place for that.

The true pedophile, on the other hand, really ought to be locked away in the same place we put psychopaths and sociopaths because they're another chip off of that self same block.

And then, we ourselves, need to look on those at the lower ends of society's rungs as what they most often are the outer grown up shell of shattered children who never, ever chose the life they now lead.

~TtfnJohn

Child Pornography Exposes

While reading something else (I don't remember what) last weekend, I found a link to a letter entitled An Insight into Child Porn posted at WikiLeaks. Traffic to the letter was so heavy for the first two days that I tried to reach it that it was unavailable (similarly to a DDoS attack), so I dug around for a legitimate mirror or a re-posted version.

What I found instead was an ABC News commentary by Michael S. Malone entitled Silicon Insider: The Dark World of Child Porn (reading, printing) that discusses an experience he had while editing now-defunct Forbes ASAP magazine. Robert Grove, Malone's multimedia editor, approached Grove to describe information he'd received from sources regarding the wide-reaching tentacles and technological savvy of the child porn industry, how it was easy-to-find and had the capability to morph into a US national security concern. Malone gave Grove the assignment to pursue the story as far as he could. Neither Malone nor Grove knew the dark road they would soon be traveling in their "three-month tour of Hell."

By the time their "three-month tour of Hell" was completed, and the story written, Forbes ASAP magazine was approaching death, so the original market for the story was gone. The parent company, Forbes, passed. Eventually Blaise Zerega, managing editor of Red Herring, was willing to help Grove's investigative article, The Lolita Problem (reading, printing), see the light of day.

The power of these unintentional "companion" pieces (Malone's commentary and Groves' investigative piece) is that, combined, they show you both the situation that was investigated and the effects that investigation had on its investigator. While Groves' piece sticks to the facts and lays them out clearly, he does is investigative job well in the respect that he is not involved, his writing is that of a reporting machine. Malone's piece makes it clear that Groves was indeed involved and describes the effects that involvement had on Groves.

While Malone, as the editor, was able to remove himself from the horror early, to partially insulate himself, Groves did not have that ability. "Very quickly, I made it a point not to look at the pictures anymore," Malone writes, "But Bob had no choice. He had to look."

I won't tell you anymore. Read the pieces themselves. I stumbled upon Malone's piece first, then read Groves', and I'm not sure whether or not the order they are read will affect their power. They should be read, though, and they should be read together.

Eventually the WikiLeaks letter, An Insight into Child Porn (machine translation to English from the original German), became available for viewing. This is a first-person account of someone purportedly involved in the child pornography business for many years. It alternately reads as a technical expose, a history of the industry, a justification of his own actions (and of a majority of the industry in general), and an argument against politician backlash against a conjured group of people who, for the most part, simply don't exist. An interesting point the writer makes is that pubescent individuals should have the right to make their own sexual decisions (including un/paid exhibitionism) because they are old enough to make their own criminal decisions. I'm not sure what to make of the piece in its entirety yet. The human-edited English translation is an easier read.

I'm actually glad the WikiLeaks piece was DDoSed for a few days, because I'd've never found the Malone and Groves pieces if the WikiLeaks piece had been available when I first tried to read it.

Read them if you can bring yourself to, and discuss.

~Riot.Jane

Sex Positive?

Greetings to the Ladies Jane --

As I sit to begin sharing with all of you, taking a few precious minutes away from the ever-growing list of chores and tasks, I wonder what today’s topic should be.

Some pretentious (and mostly groundless) statement on our current culture? (not in the mood.)

A thinly-veiled feminist rant regarding our country’s consistently conflicted views of pornography? (interesting.)

The nature of God vs. Man vs. Woman? (too heavy!)

How about a discussion of Wal-Mart, the Evil Empire, vs. Woman? (not enough self-righteous rage today.)

I think I’ll go with the choice that interests everyone – Porn. I’m not in the mood for a long treatise tonight, but a few words are required because NOW the idea is stuck in my head.

People love to see each other naked. People love to have sex because it’s fun . Most people like to see other people having sex for the same reason. In a million little ways, from “Wow, that's an interesting idea!” to the autonomic responses most of us experience while consuming pornography that interests us (rather than what specifically turns us off), we get a kick out of “adult” entertainment.

Positive sex and images of it are sociologically and psychologically healthy. People, especially women, who embrace this idea are more comfortable with themselves and more at home in our society. One of the easiest and most earthy ways to embrace this ideal is consuming pornography. Without deviating too much into the myriad implications of the “F” word (feminism), such a stance is commonly referred to as the “Pro-Sex Feminist..” This archetypical woman believes in human nature and the need to protect it, as do I.

And, so, the big question: Am I a consumer of pornography? Not to egregious levels, but of course I am. Many people claim they aren’t, but I disbelieve most of them. I tend to worry about the emotional well-being of those who honestly do not respond to something that could be classified as porn, and I think those people are actually few and far between.

Most of us just won’t admit it because we fear black-suited femi-Nazi ninjas will drop from the ceiling in order to imprison us somewhere that would make Guantanamo seem like Aspen should we utter such a vile sentiment.

“Come and get me, Ladies! You’ll never take me alive – and I’ll take a few of you down with me!”

Wow, getting that idea out of my head felt great!


~Riot.Jane