In article , Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:

And in article <33453E3A.4876@pcix.com>, Mark D. Morin wrote:

Even before this discussion got trapped in ridiculous arguments about personalities, it seems like there was a tendancy to forget just what the important issues are here for psychotherapy, and why psychotherapists should want to find good answers to this question of whether sex with adults is inherently harmful to children.

Certainly the issue is not whether one should encourage clients to have sex with children or condone existing sexual relationships of this nature. Whatever may be the case in other hypothetical or actual cultures, we live in a culture where such interactions are highly dangerous. The adult in such a relationship runs a very real risk of going to prison and being required, for the rest of his [her] life, to register as a sex offender everywhere he lives.

One need only look at the case of Gajdusek (the medical researcher convicted of molesting boys brought to this country from Africa because he continued here here in the U.S. to respect those customs considered quite normal and even desirable in the boys' native country) to realize that, whatever academic psychologists may think, the legal system does not take a very sophisticated view of these matters, and that the question of whether actual harm was done or not is one the justice system is not prepared to address. (In other words: nobody will care about your motives; you will go to jail.)

The consequences the social system imposes on the child can also be quite dire. The child may wind up spending the rest of his/her childhood in foster homes and institutions.

Furthermore, although we may question whether psychological harm always results from adult-child sexual interactions, there are thousands of cases to show that it often does, and that sometimes that harm is severe. And I don't think that anyone --- certainly not an interested party --- can say in advance with certainty that such harm will not occur.

So whatever one's moral or personal attitude may be, I think that in dealing with a client who has sexual interactions with children, or is considering such an interaction, a therapist will have little hesitation in deciding that such behavior is detrimental to the client and that therapy to change it would be strongly desirable.

The big issue here in s.p.psychotherapy is, or should be, that of treatment. How can one most effectively treat children who have been involved in sexual interactions with adults? (And we should not rule out in advance the possibility that in some cases the null treatment may be most beneficial.) And how should one deal with clients who are in a sexual relationship with a child, or have a repeated pattern of sexual interactions with children? (In the latter case, for starters, one has to be able to say things to the client that the client will actually believe. Pedophiles are very aware of every flaw in the conventional arguments against their behavior, and the therapist had better learn to be aware of those flaws as well.)

As most readers know, I'm not a therapist. My own background in psychology, such as it is, in in Neurolinguistic Programming. But regardless of one's therapeutic orientation, it seems to me that if one wants to treat children who have been harmed by sexual interactions with adults (even in cases where some people may argue whether the term ``abuse'' is really appropriate), then it's a good idea to have some insight about what the nature of that harm is and what the factors that cause it are.

One theory, which I think is held by the overwhelming majority of the general public, is that sexual interactions between adults and children (and probably also between children and each other) are inherently harmful because nature intended children to be asexual until puberty. (Whatever we may consider socially desirable, nature is clearly not about to be cooperative in keeping adolescents asexual.)

``Normal development'' for children, according to this view, includes a ``latency period'' which lasts until puberty. Ideally, during this latency period children should not even be aware of the existence of sexuality. Exposure to nudity, or to the actual sight of sex acts, either in person or by means of pornography, will disrupt the normal development process and result in children growing up warped in some fashion. There are actually some studies that can be interpreted as partly supporting this hypothesis. (John M. Price mentioned them a couple of years ago.)

Apparently it is this theory which causes Stephanie Rothman [Curio] to condemn Gajdusek.

There is also a widespread attitude, shared by many many contributors to this newsgroup (mostly including myself) that sexual interactions between adults and children, whatever harm they may or may not do, are inherently exploitative because children have neither the power or maturity to give or withhold true consent.

I have a small reservation here, because I do think that there are occasional cases where whatever exploitation exists goes in the opposite direction. I have one friend, for instance, now in her thirties, who when talking about the incest between her and her father firmly insists ``I was the perpetrator.''

I do think that my friend's life would have been better if that incest had not been a part of it, although she says that she still has a good (no longer sexual) relationship with her father. She is quick to acknowledge that she has a whole lot of psychological problems, which she is in therapy for, but I don't know how to determine whether those problems are a result of the incest or were a cause of it. I suspect the latter.

When one listens to adults who consider themselves to have been victims of childhood sexual interactions, it is seldom the actual sex that they feel distress over. Rather it is the guilt, shame, the imposed secrecy, the feelings of coercion and lack of control, and the ambivalence of being mistreated by an adult who they would normally trust and look to for protection. If this indeed is the primary source of harm, then that would suggest a very different focus for therapy than the ``latency period'' idea.

Another hypothesis is the idea that our ability to evaluate situations as good or bad is as much a learned skill as other social and cognitive skills. So that when, for instance, a child is fondled by an adult, the child doesn't really know what attitude to take towards this experience until the adults in his/her life teach her. If the parents, or teachers, or other adults in the child's life become hysterical and say, ``Oh this is horrible, you poor thing, we need to find that man [woman] and arrest him, and you need to spend your Saturday afternoons for the next six months going to therapy,'' then the child will grow up believing that they have been through some really horrible experience.

On the other hand, a woman friend of mine told of the first time she experienced frottage (unwanted sexual rubbing) as a teen-ager on the Tokyo subway. When she told her mother, her mother said, ``Oh, well, some men are like that. They have a psychological problem. It's unpleasant and you should do your best to avoid it, but it's not really very important.'' According to my friend, this brief therapeutic intervention (almost the null treatment) from her mother worked very well.

I also remember a ``kissing aunt'' who used to visit us (fortunately not very frequently!) when I was growing up. Certainly my brothers and I did not enjoy the full-mouthed kisses she insisted on every time she arrived, but my parents attitude was, ``She's your aunt: you have to kiss her because that's what she likes.'' Unpleasant as the experience was, I can't say that I am aware of any permanent harm that resulted from it. I think the harm would probably have been much greater if my parents had treated it as a case of abuse and insisted that my brothers and I all have therapy.

I think that if we want to be effective in treating the harm that often occurs from adult-child sexual interactions, then it's important to understand as much as possible about the etiology of such harm and not let therapy guided by mere conventional wisdom and social prejudices.

I think that all therapists should have some education in human sexuality. (As it is, very few have taken even a basic Sex 101 course.)

I believe that it's a very good thing that these issues are being discussed here in sci.psychology.psychotherapy and a good thing that posters such as John M. Price are helping therapists to become aware of the existing research.

--
I wasted two and a half years on an M.A. and part of a Ph.D. before it occurred to me that graduate school was seriously interfering with my education. --- Erica Jong, Fear of Flying
Lee Lady     http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady/