Paraphilias

Crowd Control III: Mixed Messages (2)

“The witch-hunt narrative is a really popular story that goes like this: Lots of people were falsely convicted of child sexual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s. And they were all victims of a witch-hunt. It just doesn’t happen to line up with the facts when you actually look at the cases themselves in detail. But it’s a really popular narrative — I think it’s absolutely fair to say that’s the conventional wisdom. It’s what most people now think is the uncontested truth, and those cases had no basis in fact. And what 15 years of painstaking trial court research (says) is that that’s not a very fair description of those cases, and in fact many of those cases had substantial evidence of abuse. The witch-hunt narrative is that these were all gross injustices to the defendant. In fact, what it looks like in retrospect is the injustices were much more often to children.”

– Ross E. Cheit, The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children


The already seriously flawed European Justice system was brought into sharp relief with the case of Myriam Delay (now Badaoui) in France, where although abuse did take place, an extended ring of paedophilia was said to have been absent. “The trial had shattered the lives of 18 people accused in the case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children, while sending France into a paroxysm of soul-searching.” [1]

The Outreau abuse trial started in 2000 and lasted until December of 2005 where over 66 adults were accused of raping, sexually abusing and prostituting 45 children between January 1999 and February 2002. By July 2005 videotaped testimony of the children provided “horrific details of abuse” which took place on a poverty stricken council estate “in a chronically deprived community.” [2]

One of the country’s biggest criminal trials, and the largest paedophile trial held in France, the Deputy public prosecutor Herve Lollic told the AFP news agency: “We are certain of not having identified all the victims and it is probable that we have not identified all the aggressors,” which doesn’t inspire the greatest confidence that justice would be done.  Charges were brought against an intra-familial paedophile ring in a poor area of a town in Western France. ‘These were people in difficulty, excluded from normal society, who found each other. And for them, everything was sexualised,’ said one local news journalist.  Another expert at the trial mentioned that ‘these were people who were unable to manage their sexual impulses. And nobody told them these things shouldn’t be done …’ [3]

Many of the accused were said to have been innocent of the crimes, with just four of the 17 men and women originally charged found guilty. What was deemed as evidence was later said to be no more than the imaginings of Myriam Delay  and the wild inventions of other children. As well as crucial evidence that was never heard in court which would have exonerated many of the accused, most of the 13 suspects who continued to plead their innocence were placed in detention in 2001. In the beginning of 2006 President Jacque Chirac called the case of the Outreau 13 “… an unprecedented judicial disaster…” [4]

France has been repeatedly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights and campaign groups for its pre-trial detention that can last up to five years. Many lost their jobs and saw their children taken into care. The case has revealed serious flaws in France’s judicial system, which should never have allowed most of the cases to come to court. This can only benefit those who commit the crimes and serves to feed the idea that much of the organised paedophilia and sexual abuse are children’s fantasies.  It underlines just how difficult it is to obtain prosecutions of high level networks if isolated groupings within society are loaded with incompetence and purposeful obstructions. It remains worrying however, that Miriam Delay on 10th day of her trial, suddenly admitted to fabricating much of the story concerning tales of gang rapes and a child prostitution ring based in her home. After a trial that shattered lives of 18 people accused in case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children it begs the question was it all lies? The answer is no. There were cases of abuse. Delay’s retraction appeared to prove that no “commercial” bartering of “services” was organised.

outreau “The innocent and politicians first!”

After so many cases of abuse coming to light in the last 20 years it could be argued that social workers were trying to cultivate due caution coupled with suitable vigilance. 21 of the 23 families in the case had been monitored by French social workers after the first report in 1999, but the investigation only began in earnest in 2002 which seems more than a little apathetic in light of the severity of the abuse.

The Deputy public prosecutor said “… I fear that these things do not just happen in Angers…” With such painfully slow realisations forming at this late stage it is no wonder that intra-familial abuse and other forms of exploitation continue to rise in society. Where cases of intra-generational abuse occur, how does one penetrate the wall of secrecy set up as a natural course by the victims and perpetrators alike? When these walls are finally broken down, the methods adopted often lead to fatal flaws that see the wrong persons accused and caught up in the ensuing and very slippery shadows, which then causes suspicion and accusations to all, regardless of tangible evidence.

From the UK to the US and things are no better. Children are suffering unnecessarily as victims only to become further victims of court ineptitude and cultural and personal bias resulting in families being broken up and effectively destroyed. Meanwhile, the real abusers continue to get away quite literally, with murder.

From a series of life history interviews conducted by Sara Scott Ph.D from the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University Liverpool, UK, the stories from one particular family detail a history of “violence, cruelty and sexual abuse.” One interviewee responded to a question about her uncle and abuse:

… once I was at boarding school he used to have to pick up us up from the airport and stay overnight and going back to school and things like that; he used to abuse then a fair bit…. My uncle in many ways was like my dad. He’d come across as a very nice bloke, good laugh and a joke. They managed to do what my parents had done, build up and image of everything’s fine, nothing’s wrong… ‘We’re the perfect family.’  My uncle has a daughter and four grandchildren – at least one I know that’s been abused.  I’m almost certain he’s abused his own daughter, he abused my sister, he abused my dad… very much into abusing people.

He abused you dad when he was young?

Yeah, from what I can gather from what my sister’s told me from when he was fairly young until his teens. Quite badly abused my dad, because of the 18 years [between them]. [5]

Scott goes onto emphasize the “ordinary” and “routine” nature of such abuse which existed in these families. Abuse began when the children were infants where it was so much part of their formative years that it became normalized:

[Kate]: Yeah, I can remember what I call normal abuse … which basically didn’t have any cult meaning, it was just my father. That was pretty much a regular occurrence as much as eating my meals actually. I can’t really distinguish particularly … It would happen at home or used to take me for walks in the park … anywhere really … I don’t think it really bothered him at all. […]

[Sinead:] As soon as I saw my mum each day I would get bath. And my mum used to pay particular attention to my private parts. She would wash me quite roughly and insert her fingers inside me. Sometimes my dad would help and he would help, and he would do the same thing. That must of gone on since I was born really. I do remember my dad would quite often insert things inside me, his hand was a favourite. It got to be normal, I just used to relax, it didn’t hurt so much. It was so ordinary, I didn’t think: ‘O, my God, what are they doing?’ That went on till I went to school. [6]

It seems to be true with many cases of intra-familial abuse that emotional cruelty and degradation also featured to a greater or lesser degree. In the case of the above middle class English family such instances included: “….pissing on me when I was in bath and putting my head down the toilet and putting faeces in my mouth. Nice, you know, nice things like that … I hate him.” [7]  Far from being merely a product of a dysfunctional family, incest is carried out most often by parents committing rape upon their own child which tends to cut through the psychoanalysis double-speak of “parents loving too much” [8] or the “failure of family obligations.”

***

If we look to the internet there are ample opportunities for those to find others who are attempting to make incest acceptable along with paedophilia. As with most forms of deviancy of the kind that includes bestiality, sadomasochism and fetishes of all types the internet provides a homogenous and anonymous entry into all manner of fantasy that is attempting to slip from pathology to normalcy.

There are even chat-rooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest. Ideas that advocate a better understanding of consensual sex between “kin”, blur the line yet again between the complexities of father-daughter relationships for example, where perhaps the only way to find a proper relationship is to give in to the adult’s manipulations, sex being the only way to gain “love” and attention. However, our concern here is for the child for whom the idea of consent, when confronted by the father or mother in such cases is a cruel abstraction devoid of any meaning. It can only be a form of parental rape at this stage and must be prosecuted as such.

In the UK, the old offence of incest was replaced with a more modern law that prohibits sexual relations between children under 18 and their blood relations, adoptive parents and siblings, step-parents, foster carers and those in a position of responsibility in the family. The “position of responsibility” covers people such as a friend of the child’s mother, a relative by marriage, such as an uncle, or another adult that lives in the same household. Whereas in New York, US, the penalty for those who molest an unrelated child differs greatly for those who molest children to whom they are related.

One may ask, which is worse: a stranger who rapes a child or the child’s own father committing the crime?

20051128© infrakshunghg

Not so, overseas. Sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law ensures significantly more lenient treatment, to the extent that the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. The problem being this is not listed as a sex offence, but as an “offense affecting the marital relationship,” It is therefore a Class E felony, whereby even a convicted offender may be granted probation. [9]

Can you imagine how useful a political tool this has become for the high-flying family man with a supercharged career and a penchant for abusing his children as he climbs the ladder to the top? Find the right lawyer, pay the money and rely on incest loopholes to finish the job. Such inconsistencies are not so surprising when we look at some of the definitions of sexual practices in law. In the State of North Carolina orgies are defined as “7 people in a closed room with their feet off of the ground.” Necrophilia (sex with corpses) was not illegal in Iowa until the late 1980s. It is surely little wonder that child abuse and the courts are in such chaos.  Similar eccentric laws exist in many Southern States.  Regardless of the precise statistics of each category there is a high probability that the prevalence of familial abuse and sexual abuse in general is not decreasing, though more overt and unplanned violent crime may well be on the decrease.

If we return to the US, in 1970 the results of one study recorded 86,324 persons arrested for sexual offences. In 1986, 168,579 persons were arrested for sexual offences which are almost double the number. The United States Department of Justice recorded in 1981 and 1989 respectively, that from 1970 to 1979 the rate of increase for sexual offences, other than forcible rape and prostitution was 5 percent. From 1979 to 1988 the rate of increase for these offences was 44.5 percent. [10] Therefore, we can make the tentative observation that the single largest group in our prison population may be those convicted of sexual offences, second only to drug offences. This maybe as much to do with sex-paranoia as puritanical authoritarianism where both are doing battle and squeezing any semblance of objectivity.

It is also worth noting that the high rate of physical and sexual abuse (including rape and violence within the family) will induce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children in particular, especially where genital pain is involved. This becomes understandable when we realise that an estimated 61 percent of violent sex offenders in State prisons have a prior conviction history and a further estimate of 1 in 4 imprisoned rape and sexual assault offenders with dominant past histories of violent crime, with 1 in 7 having been previously convicted of a violent sex crime. [11]

With child abusers who have been known to re-offend as late as 20 years following release into the community, this is not a problem that will disappear with sporadic under-funded, community-based supervision and management. This is a problem that goes very deep indeed into all aspects of social systems: economics, politics, and education.


“Society does not believe that women really do sexually abuse children … There’s almost a perception that boys should be happy or grateful, or certainly not experiencing sexual contact with females as abusive.” – Dr Joe Sullivan  [12]


As mentioned previously in discussions of The Female Psychopath female sexual abuse is another taboo the recognition of which still lags behind of male abuse both in reporting and investigations. Women in society are seen as the carers, nurturers and protectors. To accept that some women also abuse, whether sexually or physically is unconsciously resisted which has led to a paucity of research and data, though this is slowly changing. As always, this too creates tensions between child advocates, agencies and feminist groups who fear that it will feed into the already difficult plight of women in society generally, not least the arena of abuse.

There is one theory that suggests that women frequently abuse children physically rather than sexually. This is the most readily available individual, or individuals to whom the abuser can claim to exert control and retain that power normally denied to them, especially within a fragmented and disintegrating home environment where pathologies tend to manifest. [12]  Examples of female sexual abuse fall into distinct categories including: teachers who are involved with adolescent and/or pre-pubescent boys or consider themselves “in love” and/or want to teach them about sex; [13] women who are coerced into offending and who are initially abuse dependent i.e. allows another male to initiate the action but can end up abusing on their own; [14] and abusers who have been sexually abused themselves from a very young age and go on to inflict the same abuse towards their own children. This may not be necessarily aggressive, threatening abuse, rather “a cry for emotional intimacy.” [15]

Pathological narcissism and psychopathy may also play its part where cases are just too extreme to be classed as anything else. The case where a mother feared she would “lose her boyfriend while she recuperated from surgery arranged for her 15-year-old daughter to have sex with him,” is but one example. [16]

Though the above suggests there are important differences between male and female abuse, this type of offending, despite the cultural stereotyping of young boys “enjoying it and wanting it” can be just as detrimental, creating concerns regarding masculinity, deep-seated anger, betrayal, helplessness, negative attitudes towards relationships with the opposite sex and continuing occurrences of self-blame and guilt. In other words, female sexual abuse, like male abuse, has long term psychological effects that can ruin lives.

Social service and mental health professionals are unused to the idea that females can and do abuse children making the detection and of such crimes even more difficult. This means that children remain vulnerable to continuing and undetected abuse of this kind. There are estimates that 5 percent of girls and up to 20 percent of boys that have been abused are perpetrated by women, though the small amount of data available is less than definitive. [17]

With inter-generational physical and sexual abuse being unreported yet prevalent, anti-sexuality set against sexualisation form dominant forms of “edutainment” with a vacuum of appropriate role models and a widening of the gap between the rich and poor. However, with power comes impunity and while society at large battles with its demons, locked into a cycle of self-abuse, we begin to get an idea that all is not well with the authorities and established institutions in the Western world that purport to guide, instruct and look after its populace. Children are not only becoming victims within the family but are also manifesting narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies which have been inflicted upon them.

There can be no greater barometer than by looking at the plight of children under globalisation. There is thus something very wrong indeed in our institutions and social systems if the very core of the family is exhibiting symptoms of emotional decay and psychological disorders to the extent that parents, siblings resort to the abuse, torture and murder. This is further exacerbated by a climate of fear placing pressure on parents who are made to feel hypersensitive and over protective of their own children. Like certain representatives of the climate change industry, the child abuse industry often has some fat pay cheques to offer their employees.

The traditional roles of the father, mother and the family unit in general are deteriorating in the UK and the US.  Similarly, children are desperately in need of enduring role models that nurture and nourish their growth rather than creating unnecessary tensions which are pulling the child’s psyche apart. To say that children globally are receiving mixed messages would be an enormous understatement.

The spectre of the lone paedophile / child molester is given endless mileage and moral panics are whipped up to protect the organised networks of abuse. These are sometimes mirrored in the family and communities at large. The ability to tackle these issues remains diffused at best, due to the active or passive acquiescence of law enforcement and authorities already tied to what is institutional abuse in secret. This situation can only worsen if the core reasons for its presence continue to be brushed under the proverbial carpet. And these reasons are to be found in our present systems which define the very societies themselves. The Rule of Law only goes so far in protecting the innocent, but ensures immunity to those with money, prestige and power on a scale that is unacceptable for so-called democratic nations. Perhaps it has always been so, but the structures upon which our present laws were founded seemed to have all but crumbled away when the courts and custody battles are placed under the microscope.

 


Notes

[1] ‘French paedophile ring case turns into judicial fiasco’ The Guardian, December 2, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Outrage over innocent 13 jailed in sex abuse scandal’ The Times, January 20, 2006.
[4]  ‘Child abuse gang horrifies France’ By Sarah Shenker, BBC News, July 27, 2005.
[5] p.66; The Politics and Experience of Ritual Abuse: Beyond Disbelief By Sara Scott, 2001, published by Open University Press. | ISBN 0-335-20419-8.
[6] op. cit. Scott (p.67)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook.T.S Trepper and M. J Barrett, New York: Brunner/Mazel. (1989).
[9] The Incest Loophole’ By Andrew Vachss, The New York Times Op-Ed, November 20, 2005.
[10] U. S. Department of Justice (1981). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1981. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C. /U. S. Department of Justice (1989). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1989. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C.
[11] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1997.
[12] ‘Female paedophiles more prevalent than conviction rates suggest, leading forensic psychologist says’ By David Lewis
28 Apr 2015. ABC News Australia.
[13] ‘Unspeakable Acts’, Trouble and Strife 2 I(Summer), I3 p. I5 by L. Kelly. 1991.
[14] Bridget Mary Nolan, a former Australian teacher was convicted in December 2005 of having sexual intercourse with an underage student at her school. She was sentenced on March 1, 2006 to two years and four months but which led to a suspended sentence after Nolan entered a $1,000, three-year good behaviour bond. The sentencing judge justified his decision not to hand down a jail sentence due to her showing “genuine remorse.” The Australian, January 2006, p. 5./ The Australian. 2 March 2006, p. 3.
[15] A woman told investigators that she was “…coaxed into raping her 6-year-old son when her husband threatened to leave will spend the next 16 years in prison….The woman’s 30-year-old husband was sentenced …to two concurrent life.” published in The Akron Beacon-Journal, October 5, 2002.
[16] ‘Breaking the last taboo: child sexual abuse by female perpetrators’ By Renee Koonin, Australian Social Work journal, Volume 30, No 2. May 1995.
[17]  ‘Police: Teen given to older man for sex.’ Associated Press, August 10, 2006.
[18] A paper: Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, ‘Women as Perpetrators,’ by D. Finkelhor, and D. Russell New York: Free Press. (1984).

Advertisements

The Sex Establishment V: “Normaphiliacs” and Freudian Slips

“This condition had no name, under the pen of Freud it would become the Oedipus complex and create a universal pathology for the sole purpose that he could be less alone [with his creation].” […] Here is the key to the Freudian epistemology: the extrapolation of a universal theory from a personal adventure.”

– Michel Onfray, Le crépuscule d’une idole – l’affabulation freudienne (Twilight of the Idol – The Freudian Fable) 


In the 21st century we have the results of various social engineering programmes made manifest. Alfred Kinsey managed to contribute to the gradual detachment of sex from love, and the fragmentation of family and community cohesion by placing the sexual act at top of the pleasure pyramid as an end in itself. As we saw in the previous post, the pathologising and mainstreaming of minority orientation and encouragement of greater and more extreme forms of unlimited sexual expression produced the prevalence of promiscuity and body-centric values which then became a dominant part of culture. This went beyond mere tolerance and acceptance of different forms of sexual identity and preference. It has led to acts of perversion as cool, anonymous sex as normal and sacred union based on love as old fashioned and silly.

That is not to say that we must all toe the line of heterosexual sex or that there is a right or wrong way to express ones sexuality. The key issue here is being true to yourself and whether or not sexuality and sex has been engineered in a certain direction and if it has benefited societies. If that is so, as I believe, then the choices presented to us as we are growing up are not choices at all, but a product of perception management. Are we getting closer to a greater understanding of not just our sexuality, but our place in the world or are we experiencing one expression of an endemic pathology that is tainting our sexual and emotional selves under cover of “normality”?

Are we roaming further and further away from our innate human potential while believing the opposite?

By delving into the reality of psychopathy within our socio-political institutions we might be able to find the answer.


  nrm_1415950011-fifty-shades-second-trailer

Screen shot from the film ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ (2013) based on the book of the same name which involves a young woman’s exploration into sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). The book became a global best seller with 90 million sold worldwide by 2013.

Professor Amy Bonomi chairperson and professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies conducted extensive studies which show that young adult women who read “Fifty Shades of Grey” are more likely than nonreaders to exhibit unhealthy behaviours. These include: eating disorders, binge drinking, having verbally abusive partners and a predeliction for multiple sexual partners. In other words, when films and books glorify and thereby normalise a narcissistic and/or psychopathic perception of reality, we can hardly be surprised that young people begin to exhibit stress and personality deformations. Or as Miriam Grossman M.D. observed: “There’s nothing grey about Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s all black.” 


The sexual revolution was in large part a triumph of emotional immaturity and anonymous sex with women and men reflecting a caricature of their gender roles: literal objects to use and consume as a true reflection of our consumer society. Sure, there was also genuine examples of a mystical liberation through sex to which our pagan ancestors connected. There is no doubt that nature and the body was synonymous with a spark of ecstasy, a way to commune with God which developed into the cults of Dionysus and Bacchus and other body-centric, sensual rituals. The body as a bio-chemical conduit for achieving altered states can give that mystical “high” in the same way that drugs can bypass the brain filters and introduce to dimensions beyond the five senses – even if for a moment. Sometimes that’s enough to initiate dramatic change. But it is a short cut to a spiritual union that usually requires years of self development and inner work. Which is why drugs and sex magick tend to backfire. So, too the fire of sexual revolution which liberated more than just blocked emotions and neuroses. Could it be that the pendulum was allowed to swing much to far in the other direction?

As discussed, rather than feminism increasing the freedom of women’s rights in the West, under the elite-sponsored role of sexual emancipation it may have led to less rights for women and less happiness. The sexual freedom that women have rightly struggled for has proved poisonous where the modern woman is either trying to emulate the model of the alpha male in the corporate world or being caught between the false liberation of sexual promiscuity. In between those two poles lies confusion and doubt for women exemplified in the rise in narcissism.

This Kinseyian form of pseudo-scientific justification for abuse seems to be alive and well in the form of the American Psychiatric Association and the psychoanalysis tradition. Back in 2003, The American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debated whether “Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses.” Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco’s Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal.” They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously prescribed should not, for those reasons, be labelled mentally ill. These included exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism which are to be viewed as simply another form of sexual expression. They were also calling for paedophilia to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Further, that all of us “normophilics” should allow paraphilias the freedom to be who they are and to remove the label of a mental illness forthwith. Though in the minority, a significant number of members agreed.

Another speaker at the same conference exclaimed: “Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing…” and “…that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children…” noting that “many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as paedophiles.” [1] This debate has continued to the present day.

Firstly, the emphasis is not to ostracise and place a judgment upon those of differing sexual preferences but to assist and heal if these extremes exhibit pathology that is negative to both the individual and the persons who do not harbour the same sexual preference. Healing the self by practicing bondage sado-masochism (BDSM) in the privacy of your own home is fine. Propagandising such a fetish and/or accepting predatory behaviour and sexual confusion as a template for society isn’t the way forward either. A sexual interest can indeed be “Healthy and life enhancing,” depending on which lens we have decided to view reality. Our focus can be tinkered with in order that it may flow in a direction not of our choosing, yet, we follow it by rote all the same.

51lec-Zn-jL-horz

Mainstreaming pathology: You can buy yourself a Black Padded PU Leather Hood “Gimp Mask” for Sensory Deprivation Bondage or be lead round the house on a lead if you so wish.

BDSM_collar_backBDSM dog collar (wikipedia)

It is not a case of whether or not society should be free to choose how to heal and release what we perceive to be natural sexual expressions, but to explore why it is that those sexual preferences have arisen in the first place and if the various factors involved are indeed natural rather than carefully conditioned.

Ethics and values appear to be shifting in favour of a voting consensus that removes mental disorders without any safety net concerning rehabilitation and treatment, which begs the question: from what basis are these disorders or genetic predispositions decreed normal? What appears to be happening here is a spin that suggests that if it is defined as ill or pathological it is outdated and anti-progressive. If it can all be seen as just another deviancy and thus normalised we can all go home and stop being so retrogressive. If it is not an illness but one symptom among many drawn from narcissism or psychopathy, then we have clear and present implications for the safety of our nation’s health, especially children. The legitimisation of psychopathology via the Sex Establishment is joining forces with the politicisation of values that is reshaping our culture.

Paedophilia has qualities that align itself not only towards pathological narcissism but elements of psychopathy. It is interesting that there are a growing number of “scientists” of the behaviourist and psychoanalysis schools that advocate a redefinition of paedophilia rather than a redefinition of causes which could direct resources towards the treatment and prevention of child abuse. This includes learning every possible method of pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities be it psychiatrist, policeman or lawyer, making the whole question of science, law and sexual freedom an increasingly difficult equation to solve. For to do so, means that we must see the distortion and deformation of sexuality and the sexual predators that personify such a malaise. We must see this through entirely new eyes and as a web of relations intimately connected with psychopaths in power.

Paedophilia and related pathologies may well be a symptom of biological, environmental, and traumatic abuse. It may also be a choice. What is conspicuous by its absence in the above appeals for paedophile rights are the rights of children for whom we must, by virtue of our roles as guardians and protectors, take a positive discrimination in these matters regarding their welfare and safety. People with “sexually unusual” interests, said Charles Moser and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz “may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted,” which is entirely beside the point. The paedophile’s victims may not be quite so happy and well-adjusted after he has molested them. It is these kinds of remarks that feed into the mainstreaming” of pathologies under the guise of normality which may progressively alter the landscape of mass sexuality and under specific directives – then we have a problem, a problem that is not even the fault of those exhibiting sexual pathologies or otherwise.

We can regard all kinds of pathology and child trauma masquerading as healthy and well-adjusted living. This is not about making judgements about what is right or wrong in our sexuality but rather to question where we draw the line in favour of sexual expression that enriches society rather than infects it; where sexual boundaries are being pushed towards more and more extremes, rather than augmenting social relations.

Is the line between “healthy” and “damaged” becoming blurred here?

It is a contradiction that behind closed doors a select minority of paraphilics and a larger proportion of humanity seek to indulge their fantasies towards violence, fetishism, paedophilia, ritualistic sex and child molestation which may be indicative of a suppressed and learned behaviour caused by inverted and unresolved suffering. Meantime, an entirely different face is presented to the world at large. Genetics may play a significant role whereby traumas are imported down the generational line and impose “bombshells” on the next generation if no other role models exist. Yet what this means for society is the set up between the guardians of over-protection and the guardians of over-liberalisation with the resulting chaos created between the two, where opportunities for creative solutions are forever denied.

Noted luminaries were paedophiles or had paedophilic tendencies. There is certainly an historical basis in fact that much of the Establishment or “high functioning” individuals could be classed as paedophiles and/or child rapists. The nature of government, secret societies, occult fraternities, and religious institutions that offer protection of power and status as a class-based tradition may also offer a sanctuary for such people.

Is there a link that those with deviant sexual expressions gravitate towards that which can offer them cover?

This quote from The American Psychiatric Association sums up this conversive thinking in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: “302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’: ‘The essential feature of this so-called condition is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity (Criterion A). There is little motivation to seek stimuli and diminished frustration when deprived of the opportunity for sexual expression. The individual usually does not initiate sexual activity or may only engage in it reluctantly when it is initiated by the partner.” [2]

This illustrates the point and might be drawn directly from Kinseyian sexology. If you do not have sexual fantasies, a desire for sexual activity, little motivation to seek stimuli and little frustration when an opportunity for sexual expression comes your way, or even – horror of horrors – you have minimal interest in sex, then you are abnormal. You have a disorder. Notice too, that the idea of love being a factor in this purely mechanical equation is of little importance. If clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology “unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning,” then what is known as zoophilia *can be considered no more functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Even having sex with a deer can be considered fine and dandy in our paralogical reality as one Wisconsin man’s attorney claimed in his client’s defence that the:‘crimes against sexual morality’ statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses … “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Getting this man off is not the issue but the social and developmental factors governing his desire to see a carcass as sexually fulfilling is obviously the real point of contention. [3]  Paralogical and paramoralistic arguments are employed to suggest that it is perfectly normal for human beings to use animals for sex – be it dog, horse or the neighbour’s parakeet – should the desire be strong enough.

These are extreme examples. Nonetheless, what does this mean for more down-to-earth issues of sexuality? The fusing of definitions of acceptable and pathological become habitual and thus the propensity for normalisation. The manual’s criterion for mental illness appears to be getting both ever more flexible and increasingly restrictive. With a suitably biased psychiatrist, the manual can be used as a way to give undue credence to almost any abnormality or disorder depending on the required outcome. As a tool for removing subversive persons for example, a method to which psychiatry has long since lent itself. For instance, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition. A cursory look at the manual gives the impression that American psychiatry is sometimes a mix of culturally biased, reactive, class-driven moral judgements of what it considers to be abnormal behaviour.

Freud

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud believed that any and all symptoms of perceived dysfunction or neuroses could be sourced from repressed memories, irrevocably tied to a repressed sexuality. Although Freud offered intellectual insights into our understanding of human sexuality, the final analysis reveals that his psychoanalysis was an indication of his own neurosis and sexual abuse which he was busy burying under a grandiose schema of rationalisation.

While casting out any possibility of incest as predatory, he rejected the body in favour of an acute form of biological asceticism; a kind of clinical denial that strangely lent itself to the exact kind of religious conservatism that he was trying to avoid. It may be true that his victims’ pleas for understanding were merely absorbed into his own fragmented, mechanical view of sexuality by turning them all into variations on the theme of Oedipus. His rejection of incest as abusive or traumatic fit perfectly with future psychiatry and Kinseyian programming.  Proven cases of recovered memories were simply ignored. Repressed and false memories can exist but the battle between both is currently being expressed through their respective extremes with money and psychopathy as the deciding factor.

Freud’s simplistic associations have allowed pathocratic principles to burrow deeper into human consciousness and to drop our crumbling defences against the psychopath still further.  Author George K. Simon, Jr., writes in his cautionary book: In Sheep’s Clothing: “The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.” Simon further suggests: “We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much.” [4]

The whole basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytical movement rests is the wholly subjective notion that all psychological illness is rooted in repressed sexual impulses, unconscious incestuous fantasies, the spectre of death and the fear of castration, the latter of which appears to have their roots in the genital mutilation (circumcision) of the Old Testament.  Freudian psychoanalysis has given credence to the myth that girls secretly want to have sex with their fathers for example, which is crude, simplistic and on a par with the generalizations we can find in the Kinsey reports. In fact, if the denial of whatever sexual impulse is at work – whether depraved or perverted – then the basis for finding perversion distasteful must necessarily lie in one’s own unconscious desire for perverse practices. This is a both an intensely paralogical, materialist and nihilistic view of life that has no room for multiple psychotherapeutic dimensions of healing.

The psychoanalytical movement made claims that there’s was a new science when in fact it was nothing more than pseudo-science that developed a cult following. As Bob Altemeyer a Canadian professor of Psychology astutely sums up:  “One gets nowhere with a theory that can ‘predict’ whatever happened, after it happens. Having an answer for everything may make one a great used car salesman, but it rings the death knell for a theory in science. In science, the best explanations are nailed-down-testable.” [5]

814894886Freud: Father of the Cult of Psychoanalysis

While undoubtedly breaking new ground in tapping the unconscious fears that lie within the human psyche, these successes paled in comparison to the fear and loathing of both sexuality and the feminine that Freud seemed to set in motion. Freud’s own neuroses as well as the broader fears of the Jewish culture were injected into this new “science.”

Psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley illustrated the cult of psychoanalysis in this way:

Today celebrated psychiatric authors “plainly demonstrate” by methods widely proclaimed as scientific that the chief reason human beings came in time to wear clothing lies in the ever-present influence of a “castration fear” of which they all remain unconscious. Not for protection against the weather, primarily, we are told, or for purposes of adornment, did primitive men and women first don bearskin coats or grass skirts. According to high authority, the real motivation lies deeper, in a universal but unconscious terror felt by each male that a jealous father will amputate his penis. Concealing his genital organs with apparel offers him, it is claimed, a slight measure of protection from this inescapable anxiety. The female (unconsciously), believing herself already dismembered as a punishment for (unconscious) incestuous aims, hastens to cover her mutilation and veil her shame.

Much of the reasoning and investigation classed as dynamic depends upon verbal constructs which can be readily manipulated by the accepted rules to furnish a bogus proof for virtually any assumption the human imagination might contrive. […]From the standpoint of modern operational logic, a theory must be expressed in such a way that it may be proved. This is surely the case with the Freudian theory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of modern methodology, the evidence or experiment which is designed to prove the theory must he one which could have a possible negative outcome and so disprove the theory. At the present time, many of the concepts of psychoanalysis are undoubtedly developed in such a way that only proof and not disproof is possible …[6]

And it is this “bogus proof” and extreme subjectivity that gave the perfect cover for psychoanalysis to gain dominance in psychology, psychiatry and culture. It lent itself not only to misuse but acted as a gateway for any and all interpretations. Disagreements with Freud’s and his associates’ interpretations were summarily dismissed as products of “resistance.”  This was a word used by Freud to illustrate the reluctance patients showed in speaking of painful or humiliating experiences during the process of analysis. He believed this resistance: “… often utilized the mechanism of repression to remove or to withhold from consciousness impulses or memories which the patient found it particularly unpleasant to accept and admit as his own.” [7] Therefore, when the medical psychology community did not accept these chief concepts Freud put this down to the theory of resistance thereby placing constructive criticism into a box he could padlock at will.

In the early part of the twentieth until the post war period, psychoanalysis firmly stamped its mark on the subconscious of the West. Although the diversity of psychology, psychotherapy and alternative medicine has diluted Freud’s power the legacy of his influence lives on as it did most strongly in the 1950s.  As Cleckley outlines:

If a psychiatrist cannot accept as adequate the evidence Freud offers for his claim that at age four this patient was intensely motivated by a specific desire for his father to practice sodomy upon him, and was restrained in these inclinations by a fear of castration, he must be prepared to defend himself against the argument that similar (unconscious) desires and fears are determining factors in the dissident opinion. So, too, the critic who cannot accept the popular concept of universal bisexuality lays himself open to suspicions that an unrecognized homosexual tendency within himself, probably one of more than ordinary magnitude, is playing an important part in his alleged failure to accept evidence and react to it normally. [8]

Dr. Cleckley highlights the fact that Freud’s cherished beliefs do not necessarily equate with rigorous science. Politics and religion are bastions of such authoritarian, fear-based thinking that imposes the same fundamentalist beliefs upon others. Psychoanalysis is no different, which is why it has fallen out of favour in more recent times. The idea that those who disagree with the methods of the Freudian approach are somehow expressing resistance and respond: “…with unconscious longings to emulate the very thing being criticised is obviously a ridiculous simplification. The idea that the roots of all neuroses are from the repression of the procreative, biological sex impulse is equally fallacious.”

Perhaps the most revealing legacy of psychoanalysis is offered from author and consultant on abusive men and family issues, Lundy Bancroft.  He wrote about Freud’s discovery at the turn of the 19th Century, of just how many of his female patients revealed instances of incest by their fathers and brothers. Early in his career Freud came to the conclusion that child sexual abuse was a key issue in emotional illness in adult women which resulted in his famous paper: “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” He reminds us it was at this juncture that Freud, so keen to be accepted by his peers found himself ridiculed and rejected for proposing such a thing. How could it possibly be that pillars of society with unimpeacable reputations could be perpetrators of incest? It was unthinkable. The results of this shock to Freud’s intellectual pride and the consequences for the future of psychology were enormous:

Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men. Once abuse was denied in this way, the stage was set for some psychologists to take the view that any violent or sexually exploitative behaviors that couldn’t be denied—because they were simply too obvious—should be considered mutually caused. Psychological literature is thus full of descriptions of young children who “seduce” adults into sexual encounters and of women whose “provocative” behavior causes men to become violent or sexually assaultive toward them.”

Bancroft is under no illusions that the cultural influence of psychoanalysis remains strong and offers an anecdote from his experience to illustrate the point:

A psychologist who is currently one of the most influential professionals nationally in the field of custody disputes writes that women provoke men’s violence by “resisting their control” or by “attempting to leave.” She promotes the Oedipus complex theory, including the claim that girls wish for sexual contact with their fathers. In her writing she makes the observation that young girls are often involved in “mutually seductive” relationships with their violent fathers, and it is on the basis of such “research” that some courts have set their protocols. The Freudian legacy thus remains strong.”

We shortly discover just how strong this belief really is as we look further into the various expressions of abuse presently rising to surface within society.

 


* Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, “animal”, and Philia, “friendship or love”) is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. See Appendix 3 for further paraphilias.

Notes

[1] “Should These Conditions Be Normalized?” American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses By Linda Ames Nicolosi, http://www.narth.com/
[2] American Psychiatric Association’s DMH  (p. 496)
[3] ‘Sex With Dead Deer Not Illegal – Lawyer Argues’ The Register, November 11, 2006.
[4] In Sheep’s Clothing – Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People by George K. Simon, Jr. PhD. Published by AJ Christopher & Co. 2000.
[5] p.54.The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 2006 by Bob Altemeyer
[6] op. cit. Cleckley (p.112)
[7] Ibid. (p.117)
[8] Ibid. (p.118 / p.99-100)
“Freud’s long report published under the title From the History of an Infantile Neurosis can, I believe, be taken as a typical example of this work. In it a dream recalled by the twenty-six-year-old patient as having occurred when he was four years of age is confidently interpreted. The chief conclusions reached about this patient appear to be based fundamentally on this interpretation. Freud reports the entire dream as follows:
‘I dreamt that it was night and that I was lying in my bed. (My bed stood with its foot towards the window; in front of the window there was a row of old walnut trees. I know it was winter when I had the dream, and night-time.) Suddenly the window opened of its own accord, and I was terrified to see that some white wolves were sitting on the big walnut tree in front of the window. There were six or seven of them. The wolves were quite white, and looked more like Foxes or sheep-dogs, for they had big tails like foxes and they had their ears pricked like dogs when they are attending to something. In a great terror, evidently of being eaten up by the wolves, I screamed and woke up…
’The only piece of action in the dream was the opening of the window; for the waives sat quite still and without any movement on the branches of the tree, to the right and left of the trunk, and looked at me. It seemed as though they had riveted their whole attention upon me,Freud draws from this dream a number of conclusions by interpreting its various items symbolically. From its association with a few fairy tales familiar to the patient in childhood and with some not particularly extraordinary early memories he devises an astonishing explanation of the patient’s illness. Freud confidently states that the dream reveals in considerable detail an experience the patient was subjected to approximately two and a half years earlier, when he was eighteen months old.
Fragment after fragment of the dream is used by Freud to derive proof that the infant at that time saw his parents while they were having sexual intercourse.He is quite confident that the dream reveals that the parents had intercourse three times in succession while the infant observed them and also that the a tergo position was chosen for their activities. He maintains also that the patient, at eighteen months of age, was so affected by this scene that he had a bowel movement as a pretext to make an outcry and interrupt the parents in their still enthusiastic love-making. In this interpretation the number of the wolves, which the patient recalled as being six or seven, is regarded as an effect of the dreamer’s unconscious processes to disguise what he had really seen—that is to say, the two parents.
The fact that the dream scene is quite stationary and the wolves make no movement is accepted as evidence (by reversal) for vigorous coital activity by the amorous couple.The appearance of keen attention noticeable in the dream-wolves who stood in the tree, according to Freud, indicates an intense and absorbing interest on the part of the infant in what he was watching. The fact that the four-year-old boy experienced fear of the wolves in his dream is said by Freud to represent a terror experienced earlier by the infant at the sight of his mother’s external genital organs when seen as an infant of eighteen months.
The interpreter assumes without question that this alleged sight contributed to the belief that the mother had been mutilated sexually. From these points Freud reaches the confident conclusion that when the boy at four years of age had the dream he was suffering from a profound dread of castration by his father. The fact that the wolves who appeared in the dream are remembered as having particularly long tails is considered sound evidence of an opposite state (taillessness) and hence a substantial confirmation of this disquieting dread.
This preoccupation is said by Freud to have been the chief deterrent to this four-year-old boy’s dominating impulse, assumed to be a specific and strong yearning for his father to carry out upon him sexual relations per anum. In the entire report no item of objective evidence is offered to support these conclusions. Freud appears, however, to be completely convinced that all this is correct and adequately established. In fact, he insists that his whole study of this case must be ‘all a piece of nonsense from start to finish, or everything took place just as I have described it above.’

[9] Bancroft, Lundy; Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men published by Berkley Books (2003) (kindle edition)