Commentary on Current Treatments for Pedophilia

Laura Hult

Although the apparent increase of deviant sexual behaviors is of great concern to many, few crimes inspire a more impassioned response than pedophilia.

Proponents for decriminalizing pedophilic predation are equally as ardent as those who would seek the most severe penalties for such behaviors. On a global scale, the inability to reach a consensus concerning sexual involvement with children requires that science determine why some individuals are sexually aroused by children.

Only with definition can we categorically declare pedophilia as criminal behavior, else the debate will continue and more than likely conclude as a civil rights issue – with the rights of adults taking precedence over the rights of children.

We can conclude that pedophilia is a crime from the lasting effects predation has on child victims. Children seem to know instinctively that such behavior is wrong and must become a secret shared only by the child and perpetrator. This instinct for secrecy would seem at odds with evolutionary theories that propose pedophilia as an arcane survival mechanism for the preservation of our species.

Also, survivors suffer from a persistent lack of self-worth and self-esteem plus a host of comorbid mood disorders, and thus strongly suggest that pedophilia is an aberration of human behavior.

Nevertheless, we humans feel we can fix virtually anything through increased education, empathy training, behavior modification, CBT, aversion therapy, and so forth. We have created statistical software to aid us in this endeavor, and pat ourselves on the back for our ingenuity and calculated success rates of about 60% (Craisatti&Beech, 2006).

But there are several things inherently wrong with such positive assessments:

First, success rates of 60% imply failure rates of 40%. Surgeons with similar track records typically lose their licenses, often along with their patients’ lives.

The 40% who fail do so at the expense of the mental health and emotional stability of their latest victims, yet this fact is seldom considered in the evaluation and advocacy of current treatment programs.

The 60% who successfully complete mandated treatment may simply have been taught better ways to hide their deviant behavior. Repeated exposure to polygraph testing could in effect desensitize the pedophile to intrusive monitoring, and classes in victim empathy may actually enhance grooming skills.

How are we to know then what treatments actually work?

The answer is that we cannot, and the only sensible recourse left involves biological testing to discover the underpinnings of deviant sexual behavior. With the information presented by Tost, et al. (2004), we have a starting point, and perhaps through additional investigation we can discover the specific genetic factors that predispose an individual to pedophilia.

Armed with such data, medications or genetic therapies could be developed to either control deviant sexual impulses, or at best, eliminate the biological or neurochemical cause.

Sadly though, until enough research has been done along these lines, we will have to live with our mediocre behaviorally targeted treatments…and hope for the best, which is little comfort to the countless children who will continue to be victimized.

References:

Craissati, J., Beech, A. (2006). The Role of Key Developmental Variables in Identifying Sex Offenders Likely to Fail in the Community: An Enhanced Risk Prediction Model. Child Abuse&Neglect, 30, pp. 327-339.

Tost, H., Vollmert, C., Brassen, S., Schmitt, A., Dressing, H., Braus, D. (2004). Pedophilia: Neuropsychological Evidence Encouraging a Brain Network Perspective. Medical Hypotheses, 63, pp. 528-531.

Comments

perhaps through additional investigation we can discover the specific genetic factors that predispose an individual to pedophilia

This sentence actually concerns me the most because it opens up the door for the proverbial "pre-emptive" strike. I have a real concern when science gets involved in issues that are ultimately not particularly relevant to societal behavior. While it might be useful to know some of this information, the real question is simply; what behavior is considered acceptable by the society? It doesn't really matter what causes the behavior, but simply that it is unacceptable and that society take action to deal with it.

I realize that many people want to take preventative action, and this issue of genetic factors is viewed as a way to determine who may be predisposed to such behavior. However, I can think of nothing worse than labeling someone as being predisposed to pedophilia based on genetics. The simple reality is that individuals cannot presume that some "higher authority" will protect them nor that daily life comes with guarantees of safety or security. This is precisely the sort of fantasy that motivates the public and legislators to pass more and more laws that can do nothing, especially since a law was never intended to afford protection.

Real questions that need to be answered are related to the degree of anonymity and privacy of individuals, the responsibilities of personal protection, and the role of the legal system (and its attendant punishments). Past generations often had significantly more severe concerns and threats facing their children, yet in modern society we think that adults and children should be free to pursue their own respective paths and that somehow some "hidden force" will provide the oversight and protection.

People need to stop being so blindingly trusting and pay attention to those around them (including relatives) instead of presuming that the world is an intrinsically safe place and everyone is looking out for their interests.

—

Mundus vult decipi

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 14:30 PM

Link

In addition to genetic preemptive strikes, we also have the problem of making it exculpatory - 'their genes made them do it.' Everyone from anorexics to pedophiles hopes someone will find a genetic cause because it abdicates individual choice.

Hank Campbell | 07/01/09 | 14:43 PM

Link

Everyone from anorexics to pedophiles hopes someone will find a genetic cause because it abdicates individual choice.

Precisely - personal responsibility and the acceptance of attendant consequences, is in short supply today. I do not advocate the avoidance of responsibility, particularly by using biology or genetics as blanket excuses.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 15:22 PM

Link

This sentence actually concerns me the most because it opens up the door for the proverbial "pre-emptive" strike. I have a real concern when science gets involved in issues that are ultimately not particularly relevant to societal behavior.

Two issues: First, I should have been more specific and noted that my interest is in finding remediation techniques that actually work, and the identification of predisposing factors for pedophilia seems a good place to start. I do agree that there is extreme danger in labeling someone either this or that based on genetic testing, and would strongly reject any attempts to use such testing for that purpose.

Secondly, the sexual predation of our young is relevant to social behavior. In our Western society, pedophilia is not a socially acceptable activity. We teach children in elementary school that if an adult touches them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, they must tell someone. The onus is on the child as the litmus test is discomfort. If children did not feel uncomfortable, then the reporting of such incidents by children themselves would be non-existent. No, I do not have any access to the numbers, but children do report these activities to adults that they trust.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 15:16 PM

Link

First, I should have been more specific and noted that my interest is in finding remediation techniques that actually work, and the identification of predisposing factors for pedophilia seems a good place to start.

It will be hard to find genetic influences that solve both problems. In other words, genetics may reveal a genetic variant in, say, a dopamine receptor, that crops up frequently in pedophiles, and that knowledge may lead the way to effective drug treatment for those who need it. But, that same genetic variant may not be very predictive - many people will have it, with few being actual pedophiles. So genetics may lead to effective treatment options, but not to good prediction procedures.

—

Mike

Michael White | 07/01/09 | 15:24 PM

Link

...genetics may lead to effective treatment options, but not to good prediction procedures.

And at this juncture I would be satisfied with effective treatments for pedophilia to prevent further occurrences. My clients would derive great satisfaction from knowing that their experiences helped direct scientific investigation to this end.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 15:31 PM

Link

I agree - I think that is a worthy goal.

—

Mike

Michael White | 07/02/09 | 10:44 AM

Link

First of all, let me say that I'm not directing these comments to you specifically to suggest that you're somehow looking to excuse such behaviors. My expressed concern is strictly that which is associated with science being used beyond it's capabilities to engage in social engineering.

In our Western society, pedophilia is not a socially acceptable activity. We teach children in elementary school that if an adult touches them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, they must tell someone. The onus is on the child as the litmus test is discomfort. If children did not feel uncomfortable, then the reporting of such incidents by children themselves would be non-existent. No, I do not have any access to the numbers, but children do report these activities to adults that they trust.

Let me clarify my point regarding science intrusion into socially relevant behaviors. I understand your point and agree with your statement regarding how children report these activities (and the present role this plays).

However, I would also argue that this is a direct consequence of a society that is increasingly turning it's rearing of children to outside groups that have never been vetted by the parents. There is an implicit "trust" level that is assumed and is often unwarranted.

Without judging pro or con, it is an important area of investigation to examine why society has made this shift from parental to societal rearing of children. When did it become acceptable for children to be left in the care of institutional adults, simply on the presumption that they were trustworthy? When did it become acceptable that the state should be the sole arbiter of determining whether children should be entrusted to their parents?

These are all radical changes and from a biological perspective represent a marked departure from the norm. While human groups have probably all participated in rearing children that were part of the same social group, such social groups no longer exist as they once did and yet our "evolutionary" sense of trust has not adapted to this completely. In effect, this may well be one of those things that could be attributed to the "Savanna principle", in that our social behavior is constructed so that we think that every adult we encounter is part of our intimate social group or tribe.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that parents are to blame, or that they have done something wrong in enabling pedophilia. Instead what I'm suggesting is that pedophilia (except from some aggressive exceptions) is largely opportunistic, which suggests that we have not really considered how these various social changes have impacted and affected the way in which parents can protect and raise their children.

"...predisposing factors for pedophilia..."

I would also argue that the primary factor at work is the sense that they can "get away with it". This is no different than individuals that are abusive because they have "anger issues". In truth, I rarely see one of those guys have anger issues with 300 pound bikers, so instead we see them wield power over those that are weaker.

In my view, there is no solution to pedophilia until opportunities for exploitation are reduced or eliminated, and societal response is harsh, quick, and unequivocal.

—

Mundus vult decipi

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 15:59 PM

Link

My expressed concern is strictly that which is associated with science being used beyond it's capabilities to engage in social engineering.

Thank you for this distinction!

I would also argue that this is a direct consequence of a society that is increasingly turning it's rearing of children to outside groups that have never been vetted by the parents. There is an implicit "trust" level that is assumed and is often unwarranted.

Without judging pro or con, it is an important area of investigation to examine why society has made this shift from parental to societal rearing of children. When did it become acceptable for children to be left in the care of institutional adults, simply on the presumption that they were trustworthy? When did it become acceptable that the state should be the sole arbiter of determining whether children should be entrusted to their parents?

Agreed. My suspicion is that Boomers (and I'm part of this group) were so accustomed to being taken care of in relatively safe neighborhoods and schools, that relinquishing control to authority figures has come far too easily.

I'm not suggesting that parents are to blame, or that they have done something wrong in enabling pedophilia. Instead what I'm suggesting is that pedophilia (except from some aggressive exceptions) is largely opportunistic, which suggests that we have not really considered how these various social changes have impacted and affected the way in
which parents can protect and raise their children.

Being a therapist gives me a bit more latitude. I do hold parents at least partially responsible, for one only has to look at the news wires to see that this is not a safe world. The parent who presumes that the kindly next door neighbor who brings a toy on occasion to someone's child for no apparent reason might be a good babysitter, may be in for a very ugly surprise.

I tell my clients who have children of their own that a little paranoia these days about the safety of their children is a healthy thing. Most are hypervigilant, but a few cannot be bothered because they believe that their own perceived needs outweigh those of their children. Of the hypervigilant parents, there seems to be an excessive amount of guilt associated with this watchfulness. Where this guilt comes from specifically, I do not know, but it is a kind of peer pressure.

In my view, there is no solution to pedophilia until opportunities for
exploitation are reduced or eliminated, and societal response is harsh,
quick, and unequivocal.

This is my fervent desire as well, but our criminal justice system is intent on rehabilitating offenders. Thank you for your very well expressed post!

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 16:31 PM

Link

Well, this is part of the "hard-wired" mythologies that imply that all living things are ultimately victims of their "selfish genes" (sorry, couldn't resist).

—

Mundus vult decipi

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 14:50 PM

Link

Uh-oh. That phrase is like a Bat Signal for Steve Davis, though even he can't find a way to blame Richard Dawkins for pedophilia. I think.

Hank Campbell | 07/01/09 | 15:01 PM

Link

Well, this is part of the "hard-wired" mythologies that imply that all living things are ultimately victims of their "selfish genes"

Again, I am seeking answers and remediation techniques. I am not looking to excuse the behavior.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 15:26 PM

Link

Unfortunately, much of this is a product specifically of such thinking which tends to suggest that genes are very specific and represent an almost mechanistic approach to life that renders the organism helpless against the gene's expression (instead of recognizing that many genes provide for a range of results).

In reality, given the secretive nature of pedophilia, it strongly suggests that the individual is simply choosing to ignore his sense of social inhibitions and take advantage, rather than that he is driven by some uncontrollable urges.

—

Mundus vult decipi

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 15:34 PM

Link

In reality, given the secretive nature of pedophilia, it strongly suggests that the individual is simply choosing to ignore his sense of social inhibitions and take advantage, rather than that he is driven by some uncontrollable urges.

Thank you for stating this, for as I posted on another thread, an SO that I was acquainted with was adamant that social services messed up his life - not his actions. The scary part was knowing that this was his attitude even after 15 years of court-ordered therapy.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 15:43 PM

Link

Related Articles on Science 2.0

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?