Warning – this is one of those posts where I write something that can easily be misunderstood. Read everything I have to say before responding to just one section.
An article in today’s Guardian has caused a bit of a stir…
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 damageÂ â€¦ 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 aboutÂ Jimmy SavileÂ 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 inÂ child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily causeÂ harm.
Damian Thompson over at the Telegraph (who I usually enjoy) had this to say,
Britain’s most persecuted minority have found a new advocate.Â An article this morningÂ in the Guardian by feature writer Jon Henley addresses misconceptions about paedophiles, quoting one “expert” who believes that: “It is the quality of the relationship that matters”.
No, this is not not some sick send-up on my part. “If there’s no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power,” says Tom O’Carroll, “if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily â€¦ the evidence shows there need be no harm.”
O’Carroll is a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs. The Guardian acknowledges this, but gives him a respectful hearing and points out that “some academics do not dispute” his views.
Hmmm. At this point it’s worth reading the whole Guardian article to see what is or isn’t being claimed (or advocated for).
So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescentÂ 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 abuseÂ children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact,Â “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.Â Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that “TheÂ 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, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate â€“ based on possibly flawed science â€“ is that “one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children”.Â Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.
Now that’s an interesting series of numbers and observations, key to which is that most “paedophiles” never act out and many of those who commit sexual offences against children are not themselves true paedophiles.
What about causation?
Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association’sÂ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersÂ â€“ “the psychiatrist’s bible” â€“ has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. AndÂ few agree about what causes it.Â IsÂ paedophilia innate or acquired?Â Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada’s Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthÂ 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 aÂ 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.Â Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, andÂ the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldlyÂ that paedophilia “is aÂ sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.
Interesting ideas. What about pastoral care?
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 â€“ acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it â€“ 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”.
Nothing there that most of us should disagree with. However, back up a few paragraphs and we get to some real meaty contention.
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 â€“Â as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O’Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate withÂ 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 â€¦ the evidence shows there need be no harm.”
This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O’Carroll’s bookÂ Paedophilia: the Radical CaseÂ 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 orÂ torture.
But not all experts are sure.Â A Dutch study published in 1987Â found that aÂ sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. AndÂ a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-studyÂ suggests â€“ as JÂ Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says â€“ that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.
Most people find that idea impossible. ButÂ writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion “disturbing”, heÂ was forced to recognise that “persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist”.
Ouch! It’s interesting to examine one’s response to such research because it betrays how you approach the “critical method” of thinking. Do we reject such research because we think it’s poor or incorrect or simply because we don’t like the outcome? Certainly, consensualÂ paedophilic relationships emerge from time to time in the public domain (by all accountsÂ Kevan Roberts’ sexual relationship with Thomas Marshall who he murdered was consensual) and Theo Sandfort’s research (and he had no axe to grind unlike others) clearly challenges the idea that proper consent cannot ever be given by a minor or that such relationships will always cause harm.
Of course, none of the above should be read as an advocacy for such relationships (I have consistently stated that I believe that the only moral place for sex is within a marriage of a man and a woman, so that pretty well rules out all of these relationships as immoral), simply an observation that such consensual relationships do exist contrary to what some may claim. I’m far more interested in the pastoral notions that are raised and Damain Thompson’s response to it.
I’ll leave you to make up your minds about this argument, but here’s a point to bear in mind. It wasÂ preciselyÂ this sort of “enlightened” attitude that persuaded Catholic bishops in the 1980s to adopt a mild, nuanced approach to suspicions of clerical paedophilia.
Really Damian, is that actually what you think? You think it’s wrong to both make sure that those who do commit sexual crimes are brought to justice and yet at the same time try to help those who come to the Church looking for pastoral support to not act on their sexual orientation? You think this is wrong?
No wonder some Roman Catholics have a bad press.