Relatively little research has
been carried out into the ways in which intergenerational
contacts are experienced. That which we ‘know’ about
(sexual) relations between young persons and older persons
mainly consists of interpretations of studies carried out among
‘abuse victims’. Those who get different finding – simply
by asking questions and listening to people – are seen as
having been taken in by the ‘cognitive mistakes’ paedophiles
make. All this does not amount to critiques of scientific
method, but to ideology.
Over the years, a number of interesting studies have been
carried out in Germany. They tell us something about a little
known reality behind the common conceptions about
intergenerational relationships.
A famous study is Rüdiger
Lautmann's from 1994 (further information at the bottom of
this article). Lautmann extensively interviewed sixty men with
paedophile feelings and contacts. These men did not live in
prisons or clinics: they were free citizens who had responded to
his appeal. Lautmann discerned between ‘true paedophiles’,
those who report being attracted to children, including
sexually, and ‘offenders’. He restricted his research to the
first group.
Sexual scripts
Those who, prior to carrying out
any research among this group, would talk in terms of ‘fixation’
or ‘psychiatric perversion’, will not come away any the
wiser. The question should be: what does this preference mean to
the people who have it? Lautmann, in interviewing his subjects,
became convinced of the existence of voluntary, mutual love
relationships that do not call for any form of intervention. He
learnt from his respondents that sexual contacts are not what is
essential to them: it is ‘natural’ contacts they want, being
close to a child. This mainly goes for the boy lovers; the girl
lovers primarily report aesthetic motives.
What respondents identified as
‘attractive’ about children is barely different from what is
found in different types of sexuality. Sexuality and the
genitals are not central at all to the experience. Where
prepubescent children are involved, this aspect is wholly
absent; centre stage is claimed by the experience of being in
touch with the child and the fascinating dynamic of growing up.
Lautmann's respondents avoid explicit sexuality. They approach
children as subjects, not as objects. From his material,
Lautmann derives sixteen ‘sexual scripts’ which children can
adhere to. Indeed, sexual scripts: sexuality is a natural aspect
of children's lives. It is not the result of a developmental
disorder, a trauma or something to that effect – it just
exists.
In a more recent publication, in 2004, Michael Griesemer
describes the change in thinking about paedophilia, which he
says occurred in 1987 as far as Germany goes. Previously, ‘the
problem of paedophilia’ was approached in a humanistic way.
Since then, medico-psychiatric and forensic approaches have been
emphasized: the issue was framed as ‘punishable sex’. A
witch-hunt directed at people with ‘certain disorders’
ensued. This change in thinking materialized in the mass media,
but also among professionals. Both began to use the term ‘child
sexual abuse’, an ineffectual term because it is laden with
prejudice. According to Griesemer, the change in thinking and
vocabulary is not based on sound research. It is an axiom, a
position that does not require any evidence.
Griesemer is clearly annoyed by
the methodological mistakes he has encountered in research
reports, especially those published since 1987. He finds
definitions and distinctions to be lacking; everyone is a ‘victim’
and a ‘child’, without any specification of age. All types
of sexual contact have been lumped together as ‘sexual abuse’.
The rape of a five-year-old girl by her neighbour thus ends up
in the same category as homoerotic play between a boy of fifteen
and a man. All nuances are eliminated.
Griesemer also sketches the
consequences of this change in thinking. One result is that harm
is always assumed and so does not need to be proved on a
case-by-case basis. Children are branded as ‘victims with a
trauma’ ahead of any research. Positive feelings and
testimonies are practically ruled out.
Competence
Still more recent, from 2006, is
a study by Horst Vogt. This scholar used questionnaires
and tests to collect a large amount of data about 72 persons
with paedophile feelings. These were not prison or clinical
populations either. Vogt collected the same data among a
heterosexual control group so he could compare both groups. The
German approach is evident here: thorough, very sound, extensive
and characterized by a very precise use of language.
Vogt himself coins two new
terms, which I shall translate as ‘promoting well-being’ and
‘promoting illness’. For this is the information he is
after: to what extent do people with paedophile feelings feel
either well or ill? In measuring this, Vogt stresses what I
translate as ‘competence’, that is, ‘being able to cope
with the challenges of life’. He also pays special attention
to the experience of stress and feelings of isolation or their
absence.
Further, he looks extensively at
the self-image of his subjects. He finds that they do experience
more stress than the average person. But in comparing them with
the control group, he finds no further factors that set them
apart, at least no mental or perceptive disorders. In other
words, they move and quack like ordinary human beings.
Vogt distinguishes between two
groups of people with paedophile feelings. One group has a
negative self-image, a socially isolated way of life, a low
self-esteem, lots of stress, little well-being and many inner
conflicts. Another group has a positive self-image, and although
they experience stress, the people in this group consider
themselves to be competent. They experience no inner conflicts
and have no issues with their sexuality – their issue is with
society.
Vogt sees paedophilia as a
primary sexual orientation – and not the consequence of a
morbid fear of women – which is normally formed during
childhood. The indications are that this orientation cannot be
changed.
Vogt calls the present trend of demonizing and pathologizing
paedophilia plainly harmful and counterproductive. It leads to
stigmatization, exclusion and isolation. He argues for de-pathologizing
the phenomenon. He considers more empirical research to be
necessary, although objective research is tricky due to social,
legal and ethical restrictions. Sometimes research is
impossible, sometimes publication is impossible, and sometimes
an author is not allowed to lead a peaceful life after having
published a study.
Ideology
This line of science is all very
well, but there is a problem. This type of research is not being
read and it is not accepted. Lautmann, by having taken his
respondents seriously, is said to have encapsulated their ‘cognitive
errors’ nicely. Lautmann has been taken for a ride, the
argument goes; something paedophiles as a whole are thought to
excel at. When discussing Griesemer, the conclusion is that we
were simply quite mistaken before 1987. Only then did we
collectively see the light, among other things because of fine
scientific research. Or so the reasoning goes. Vogt is said to
paint his subjects in a far too positive light and to be blind
to ‘the little victims’. He only pays attention to ‘the
offenders’, and their well-being takes precedence over that of
the victims.
My take is: this is not a critique of scientific method. What we
are dealing with here is ideology, a system of notions never
called into question and believed a priori to be true. It is a
collection of ideas people also subscribe to emotionally and for
which they find corroboration in society over and over again.
Even the best scientific research cannot change anything about
that. Ideology is found in the mind, but to a large degree it
also resides in the heart and in society.
My question is:
What can be done against such
ideologies?
The studies mentioned in this
article
