Over the past few days, I’ve been reading — a page here, a page there — Daniel Bergner’s lengthy January 23 New York Times article, “The Making of a Molester.” He follows “Roy,” convicted of attempting to molest his 12-year-old stepdaughter, and chronicles his rehabilitation process. There are two things that really stood out for me — the first is that some 90% of offenders can be rehabilitated (conversely, 10% cannot be, and thus must be separated from society), and the second is that there is very little difference between an average individual and a would-be child molester. Here’s an excerpt, about a group of recovering offenders and Patrick Liddle, their group therapist.
[M]ost of the group tends to fall somewhere closer to the middle of a continuum — a continuum on which normal occupies a broad and blurry sector. With most of the men he has worked with over the past 14 years, Liddle says, ”the difference between me and my guys is a very thin line.” He doesn’t mean that he’s on the edge of doing what they have done, only that the potential may lie within all of us.
”We want there to be the clear line; we want there to be the sloped forehead,” David D’Amora [Patrick Liddle’s boss and the head of the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior] has said, summarizing society’s thinking about the men in groups like Liddle’s, men D’Amora has been watching over for the state since 1986. Before that, he was a therapist for adult and child victims of sexual assault. ”It just doesn’t exist. We want them to be the few, the perverted, the far away. Most are not.”
Bergner makes a particularly salient pair of points about young girls. The first is that it was only a few generations back that the eon-old standard of the age of consent was advanced from the age of 10-12 up to 16-18. Humans are biologically accustomed to the idea that mating is acceptable once reproduction is possible, and reprogramming that isn’t as easy as changing the law. The second is that girls are highly sexualized — parents permit their girls to be tarted up while still in elementary school. It is perhaps understandable that a developed 12-year-old girl dressed in sultry clothing and wearing makeup will trigger a response in an adult male, especially if her age is non-obvious.
Of a series of portraits which the subjects review, in order to test their rehabilitative progress, Bergner writes:
And when, later, I clicked through a sampling, the distinction between age categories sometimes eluded me. The subjects in the pictures are supposed to represent four plainly separate age groups so that areas of attraction can be clearly measured. There are children of 2 to 4, children between 8 and 10, adolescents between 14 and 17 and adults at least 22. But some of the 8-to-10’s looked to me almost like young adolescents. And some of the adolescents appeared more like young fresh-faced adults, with the kinds of faces and bodies you might see on billboards selling underwear, before I reminded myself about the likely ages of the models in some of those ads.
It’s tempting — and easy — to classify child molester as monsters, as if that settles the matter. But it doesn’t. Given that 1 in 5 girls will be molested, there is a great deal about this crime that we do not understand.
Of that 10% who cannot be rehabilitated, it seems that there’s little to do but keep them on probation for life or, among those who are predatory, imprison them for life. Prison is all too often used to warehouse those who are of no harm to anybody — drug offenders, in particular. In the case of this group — regardless of the “very thin line” that separates us from them — there’s nothing to do but lock them up and throw away the key.
Very disturbing, especially that it seemed to you that “there is very little difference between an average individual and a would-be child molester.”
It is true that girls are looking older every day, and there is no question that today’s fashions make the girls more alluring than ever. Yet it seems to me that the author (or perhaps your interpretation of the author) implies that, in some way, it is understandable that these men might react the way that they do because of the temptations laid before them.
This kind of thinking is the germ that can quite easily spawn the thinking that rape is understandable / justifiable because a woman was dressed provocatively or in a sexy manner. Hello? As sentient human beings, we are supposed to be able to control our instinctive urges – particularly if indulging them hurts others. That is why we have jails, for people who for one reason or the other cannot control their behavior. As you said, these people must be rehabilitated or withdrawn permanantly from the community if rehabilitation is not possible.
To make any implication that the behavior of sexual offenders, male or female, is understandable given the circumstances is a cop out, and a dangerous line of thinking. We can do better than that.
Not the same issue, but this reminded me of statutory rape laws (I’m currently analyzing Measure for Measure, which brings of the issue of sexual morality and the law).
For an 18 year old male to have sexual relations with a 12 year old has been deemed by society to be a negtative thing, even though, as the article point out, such relationships were commonplace in the past. It is easy to forget when watching Romeo and Juliet that they were about fifteen. But the existence of such arrangements in the past does not imply that they were right. I tend to see society as having moved forward in a somewhat linear trend, and the abandonment of child marriages is, I believe, an improvement.
But statutory rape? 18 year old college freshman goes to a party where there happens to be a 17 year old high school student… they’re both mature looking, especially her. She is seductively dressed. They’re both drinking. They’re both high on something. Yet, when they have sex, he is completely responsible and she is not. That is wrong.
Or, two high school seniors are genuinely in love. It’s his 18th birthday. They “celebrate.” She doesn’t turn 18 for another two weeks. Again, he goes to prison. She doesn’t. Not fair.
Very disturbing, especially that it seemed to you that there is very little difference between an average individual and a would-be child molester.
It didn’t “seem to me” — that was most of the point of the article. :) In the author’s conversations with researchers, what all researchers agreed on is that they simply don’t know what the difference is between (would-be or actual) child molesters and regular people. They don’t know what causes it, they can’t see how they’re less than normal in any way other than their actions.
It’s a creepy thing.
It didnt seem to me that was most of the point of the article. I meant to imply that the statement was of someone’s opinion, in this case not yours resulting from reading the article, but the authors – and that it was not a statement of fact.
Sheesh, with a geek for a husband, you would think I would know how to use those HTML tags. :-( The first sentence only was supposed to be italicized.
I added a preview function, ‘cuz I keep making that mistake, too. After years of admonishing people to “preview before they post” on nancies.org, I figured a preview function would be in order here, too. :)