Sandusky trial

[Iwillheal]

I find this whole thing re: child abuse being worse than elder abuse because of the effect being greater to be a dangerous argument. It's a slippery slope to say one type of person's suffering is worse than another's. Who gets to determine the value of a life...? That's a rhetorical question because in my opinion that's not something that's knowable. Meaning that an old person could have just as much if not more potential than a young person.

Feels like a debate over deciding which to value more, subjective or objective.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

No one vaules ALL life equally. Be honest with yourself for goodness sake...

 

[Iwillheal]

Yeah, it doesn't show much regard for human life if we approach older adults as though there's some kind of expiration date after which their worth is diminished. "I'm sorry, Dr. Chomsky, but you're 83 now, and we simply don't think you're worth as much as that child kicking pigeons in the park."

I actually find your post a little insulting. Well, it's like saying: "I'm sorry little Albert/Mohandas, I don't think you're worth as much as the 83 old senile guy in a senior home."

Nobody is saying old people are worthless. But fact of life is that we have to make very difficult decisions. Have you ever worked in the ER? Often times every single person there is suffering. Suffering is rarely the only thing considered, nor should it be the only thing considered in the criminal system. Yes, it SHOULD be considered and for too long human subjectivity has been ignored so I understand and respect people's emphasis on valuing subjectivity, on importance of voicing our feelings, on importance of being heard. But I also know that there is more, and that human potential does come to play when making difficult decisions. An unconscious victim of a car accident may not be suffering much but there is potential for his situation to get much worse, a potential for death. A young healthy person who is suffering tremendously may be sent home because there is potential for her body to heal itself in due time so the doctor decides to attend to the old person--who may claim she is not suffering, but does have bad kidney--because there is potential for serious complications.

So when somebody commits a crime, we have to decide what the proper punishment is. One of the questions is: How "bad" is the crime committed? If a surgeon has his hands cut off by a psychopath, he can claim that he had the potential to earn a certain kind of living which he can't now. If he was 90, he couldn't say that. Does that mean he is a worthless person when he is 90? Absolutely not. But as far as "potential", he has less of it. Does that mean he did not suffer to have his hands cut only because he was old? Absolutely not. Does that mean he can have no influence on others, that he can't actualize his potential, that he is somehow "worse" than a child? No, but we are faced with practical matters in this world, with tough decisions, priorities, etc.

All this is reminding me of my grandpa. My grandpa passed away a few years ago. He was a great teacher and a man of God. As a kid I found in him another ignored soul. In parties, we would both sit together and talk words and meanings while adults laughed and talked politics. It infuriated me when I would hear people mock him behind his back as he grew older and lost his sharpness and ease with words. I felt a separation as I grew older and became more competent and intelligent and he became older and more senile. He had less and less things to teach me. I would at times stop conversing with kids my age so could spend time with grandpa, and pretend to be hearing things for the first time. It took quite a bit of coaxing by my parents to separate me from grandpa and accept that people change, quality of relationships change. I wish I will never been in a situation where I have to choose who to save, my child or my parent. But life is full of difficult decisions. It builds character. And I love debates like these because as tough as they are on me emotionally, they help me check my priorities and also really get to know others.

 

[wigflip]

I actually find your post a little insulting.

I think you're easily insulted, iwillheal.

Well, it's like saying: "I'm sorry little Albert/Mohandas, I don't think you're worth as much as the 83 old senile guy in a senior home."

But since we're on the subject, why do I have a feeling you don't know who Noam Chomsky is?

 

[wigflip]

No one vaules ALL life equally. Be honest with yourself for goodness sake...

We should be outraged about CSA, especially when it involves an institutional coverup like the Sandusky case. I just happen to think that a) there are a lot of other things worth getting equally outraged about, like torture and other forms of violence, as well as the examples Pragma put forth in a previous post, and b) the special place that children seem to occupy in the contemporary North American imagination is historically and culturally situated. If we were discussing minors (not miners) in a rural farming area 150 years ago, when the infant mortality rate was astronomical, we wouldn't be nearly so sentimental about children. We'd be thinking about them as a labor resource and as replaceable (as opposed to "innocent," "special," "full of potential," etc.).

 

[cara susanna]

As a side note, I'd be really curious to hear more about the wife's psychological state. It seems like she found the boys to be a competition, as if they were somehow seducing/luring Sandusky. That would be an interesting (and disturbing) case study.

She claims that she didn't know about it but didn't ask because she didn't want to know. Research actually indicates that women are less likely to believe their daughters were sexually abused if it happened while they were home. I think it's similar. I think she was just in deep, deep denial.

I want to know if he ever even had sex with her. All of their children are adopted.

 

[wigflip]

She claims that she didn't know about it but didn't ask because she didn't want to know. Research actually indicates that women are less likely to believe their daughters were sexually abused if it happened while they were home. I think it's similar. I think she was just in deep, deep denial.

I want to know if he ever even had sex with her. All of their children are adopted.

Great post, cara. Would you be willing to please share the reference for that? I'd love to read it.

 

[Iwillheal]

But since we're on the subject, why do I have a feeling you don't know who Noam Chomsky is?

Wigflip, I do know who Chomsky is but perhaps you know him much better than I do. He is a brilliant intellectual with a lot of compassion for people whose voices are never heard. I learned about him when I was reading a book on mass media though my formal introduction to him was through my studies in cognitive psychology and his sharp critique of behaviorism.

And yes, it would be a tragedy when he passes away, not only because yet another human being's life comes to an end but also because of the kind of person he is and his many contributions, past and present.

 

[Pragma]

I'm not sure that ranking types of abuse is a productive activity

I agree. I just find the discussion interesting in the way that it intersects with a practioner's attitudes towards their clients. A lot of psychologists work with offenders. It seems that many folks would not work with sex offenders (presumably) because of their own personal bias against these folks.

I'm sure it is easier to be somewhat forgiving in the presence of institutional pressures (e.g., within the military environment, or someone commits a crime possibly as a result of systemic oppression, poverty, etc). But I certainly hope that folks who work with sex offenders, including those with pedophilia, are able to have some empathy. I don't have any references handy, but I thought that read someplace that most sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves, often in childhood.

Part of the reason that I don't work with kids is because I find it difficult because there is so much that is out of their control. I acknowledge the vulnerability. But I find it interesting how some folks decide that offenses against other populations are more stomachable as a psychologist. At least it seems we can all agree that offending in general is a bad thing.

 

[cara susanna]

Great post, cara. Would you be willing to please share the reference for that? I'd love to read it.

I had to dig it up because I read it back in undergrad, but I found it! Here is the citation: Joyce, P. A. (1997). Mothers of sexually abused children and the concept of collusion: A literature review. Journal Of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations For Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 6(2), 75-92.

 

[wigflip]

Wigflip, I do know who Chomsky is but perhaps you know him much better than I do. He is a brilliant intellectual with a lot of compassion for people whose voices are never heard. I learned about him when I was reading a book on mass media though my formal introduction to him was through my studies in cognitive psychology and his sharp critique of behaviorism.

I'm mostly familiar with his political writings, though he cropped up in my cog psych class as well. His linguistic work is actually poorly regarded in the socio-linguistic circles I travel in, but that's another story...

 

[wigflip]

I had to dig it up because I read it back in undergrad, but I found it! Here is the citation: Joyce, P. A. (1997). Mothers of sexually abused children and the concept of collusion: A literature review. Journal Of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations For Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 6(2), 75-92.

You're the best. Thank you so much.

 

[wigflip]

I agree. I just find the discussion interesting in the way that it intersects with a practioner's attitudes towards their clients. A lot of psychologists work with offenders. It seems that many folks would not work with sex offenders (presumably) because of their own personal bias against these folks.

I used to do paraprofessional work with both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. Victims' advocates tend to look askance at people who work with perpetrators. But someone progressive explained it to me like this, "If we [progressive minded feminists with a grounding in victims services] refuse to work with perpetrators, who does that leave to do that work?" My very first client was mandated to attend group after being arrested for attempted murder. It was interesting work, but I think I was undertrained to work with the population. I hope I get to get back to it someday with a better grounding in the (clinical) literature.

 

[Iwillheal]

It seems that many folks would not work with sex offenders (presumably) because of their own personal bias against these folks.

...but I thought that read someplace that most sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves, often in childhood.

I hope this is not directed at me, for two reasons: One, I'm not a psychologist and am still in training. Two, deciding to not work with pedophiles or whatever group of people is actually a sign of maturity and the ethical thing to do, if you know yourself well enough to anticipate difficulties forming a working relationship with these people. We are not saints, we are human beings. We all have our biases, even those of us who deny it. If a Jewish colleague, a son of Jewish Holocaust survivors, told me he rather not work with a neo-Nazi serial killer because he will have difficulty controlling his emotions, I would respect his decision and admire his professionalism. If he does work with him but abuses his power, I would totally lose respect for him as a therapist.

Even a respected therapist like Yalom freely admitted his disgust at working with "fat" women. Of course, the story has sort of a happy ending because Yalom overcomes his bias to some extent. I'm not sure if this is always the case nor do I think patients should be used as lab rats to help us overcome our biases.

It's quite simple really. I had a friend who was sexually abused as a child and committed suicide in his 20s. His suffering, his life story, all that is very familiar to me. I know it too well. I have gone for personal therapy, done it all, but still find that sort of abuse worse than physical violence or elder abuse or whatever. But that's just me. A physicians may decide not to work with cancer patients. A lawyer may decide against criminal law. I am self aware enough not to work with pedophiles if I ever have the opportunity. I personally believe that many pedophiles are beyond reach. Some do end up "intellectually" understanding why it's wrong, and some do respond to behavioral treatments but for many who are constantly aroused by little kids, there is not much to do to change that at the core except to keep them away from kids.

We are psych students and therapists here so me saying how I feel is not out of line, I don't think. Whether this makes me a horrible human being, is a different matter. But as a therapist, I don't want my own issues to interfere with treatment.

 

[roubs]

We all have biases and we work to manage them. Could you ever manage your bias to the extent that you could work with a sex offender? It sounds like probably not, but we're not good at predicting the future.

If someone develops a protocol that successfully trains individuals to resist taking action on what they feel and it's empirically demonstrated that this protocol reduces re-offending, I could see some clinicians viewing this work as a service. If the end result is fewer children being victimized, doesn't that make managing our biases a worthy goal? It'd be totally fine if you and others with a personal connection to abuse still decided it wasn't for you, but to some extent we are all biased against them and some of us should probably find ways to manage it if we can play a part in prevention. Is it repugnant to empathize with an offender if we are empathizing with their struggle to control themselves? I'm not sure. As others have mentioned we (societal we) have a tendency to merge their identify with the concept of evil. Evil's a hard thing to find common ground with. Yet at the same time we still use risk management techniques with this group.

 

[Pragma]

I hope this is not directed at me

It wasn't

deciding to not work with pedophiles or whatever group of people is actually a sign of maturity and the ethical thing to do, if you know yourself well enough to anticipate difficulties forming a working relationship with these people. We are not saints, we are human beings.

I don't disagree with you here. I'd agree (and mentioned earlier) that it would be your ethical responsibility not to work with these folks if you feel unable to provide appropriate services due to your own emotions/attitudes getting in the way.

People select to specialize and work with particular groups all of the time, and a part of this is personal preference, etc. It isn't one's responsibilty to go serve anyone/everyone (well, except in an emergency situation per the ethics code).

I guess my question has to do more with training and guild attitudes. Admittedly, I haven't had this discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised if I encountered "How could you want to work with those monsters" types of attitudes from colleagues if I decided to specialize in working with sex offenders. On a more macro level, I fear that there will a) not be enough people willing to work with the population or b) people will work with this population out of economic necessity, for the wrong reasons, or with poor training, and may not provide appropriate services. It isn't a personal critique on anyone, but a concern for the profession as a whole.

I actually encounter some pretty un-enlightened attitudes from fellow professionals about much less taboo groups of clients that I don't mind working with (e.g., chemical dependency, some Axis II). Actually, comments have been downright derogatory at times, which is sad as we ought to maintain some professionalism I'd think. I'd also suggest that even if you don't personally do the work, it would be one's professional responsibility to become familiar enough with the work to make an appropriate referral if needed.

But, this is also coming from someone who loses sleep over questions like this. It is a (tiny) part of my preference for academic work and decision to go the route of teaching/research. The severity of the problems many clients face is enough to burn me out. That's why I'm headed to the ivory tower. I'll be the one playing with the laser pointer and complaining about NIH if you need to find me.

 

[wigflip]

But, this is also coming from someone who loses sleep over questions like this. It is a (tiny) part of my preference for academic work and decision to go the route of teaching/research. The severity of the problems many clients face is enough to burn me out. That's why I'm headed to the ivory tower. I'll be the one playing with the laser pointer and complaining about NIH if you need to find me.

Based on what you've written here and elsewhere, there are probably a lot of clients/patients who will miss out (meant as a compliment, not chastisement).

To everybody:

If you are someone who elects not to work with a particular population, what happens if you find out (once you've already been working with someone for some time) that an existing client/patient falls into the group with whom you prefer not to work? Either they 'fess up to something they concealed during intake, or you get a call from a parole officer, or they simply decide to start doing X behavior while in therapy?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Based on what you've written here and elsewhere, there are probably a lot of clients/patients who will miss out (meant as a compliment, not chastisement).

To everybody:

If you are someone who elects not to work with a particular population, what happens if you find out (once you've already been working with someone for some time) that an existing client/patient falls into the group with whom you prefer not to work? Either they 'fess up to something they concealed during intake, or you get a call from a parole officer, or they simply decide to start doing X behavior while in therapy?

That's a very good question. I'd say that if the revelation significantly alters the way you feel about the patient, and you don't believe you could any longer competently and adequately treat the individual, then you'd be obligated to get them into treatment with another qualified professional. At the same time, you'd need to realize that doing so would obviously irreparably damage the relationship, and you'd very possibly end up with a lawsuit (although not necessarily one that would succeed).

A big chunk will probably depend on the individual therapist as well. I'd imagine that at least with some providers, if they'd already established a relationship with the patient, then this type of revelation might not disturb them quite as much as if it had been known/apparent from the beginning (what can I say, we're emotional rather than logical creatures much of the time).

For me personally, I don't have any knee-jerk negative reaction to the thought of working with sex offenders, including pedophiles. However, I still constantly vacillate with how skilled I feel myself to be as a therapist, and I'd be the first to admit that working with a population such as sex offenders would require a significant aptitude (and investment) in therapy.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Do you guys find that because so many people refuse to work with child sex abusers or violent sexual offenders, that the professionals who do (i.e. in prisons or court-mandated therapy) are bottom-of-the-barrel?

This is the impression that I get but I admittedly do not have that much experience. One of my friends in college applied to work in a prison with violent sex offenders but they actually refused her application because she is 5' 1" and they deemed her too small. I thought that was odd in and of itself but it shows the types of unusual things that working with this population has to take into account.

Edit: she's a nurse, not a therapist. I should have specified that.

 

[Pragma]

Based on what you've written here and elsewhere, there are probably a lot of clients/patients who will miss out (meant as a compliment, not chastisement).

To everybody:

If you are someone who elects not to work with a particular population, what happens if you find out (once you've already been working with someone for some time) that an existing client/patient falls into the group with whom you prefer not to work? Either they 'fess up to something they concealed during intake, or you get a call from a parole officer, or they simply decide to start doing X behavior while in therapy?

Awwww - I think I am tearing up! But it's probably better that the clinical work is left for those with vast reserves of empathy.

Regarding your other question, it certainly presents itself as an ethical dilemma. I'm sure it does not come up all that often, but it still could happen. I'd be interested in how folks who plan on full-time clinical careers would answer it.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

There are really no groups that I don't want to work with wholesale, so I don't think that would happen.

I mean, if you gave me somebody who is transsexual or a child molester I don't think I am (or will be) competent to work with either population, but I'm not somehow morally opposed.

 

[wigflip]

Do you guys find that because so many people refuse to work with child sex abusers or violent sexual offenders, that the professionals who do (i.e. in prisons or court-mandated therapy) are bottom-of-the-barrel?

This is the impression that I get but I admittedly do not have that much experience.

Do you mean that their clinical skills are only marginally competent, or that they are merely considered to be "bottom-of-the-barrel" (i.e. their work is stigmatized, so that stigma rubs off onto those clinicians)?

 

[wigflip]

There are really no groups that I don't want to work with wholesale, so I don't think that would happen.

I mean, if you gave me somebody who is transsexual or a child molester I don't think I am (or will be) competent to work with either population, but I'm not somehow morally opposed.

I think my transgender acquaintances might object to that juxtaposition...

 

[cara susanna]

My program has a lot of students interested in working with offenders and they are great clinicians and researchers. I guess it could be an exception, but still.

I think what discourages so many people is that we know the recidivism rate for sex offenders and how basically very little works to change their behavior long-term. If someone developed, say, a DBT equivalent for pedophilia I think more people would be willing to work with them.

 

[roubs]

There are really no groups that I don't want to work with wholesale, so I don't think that would happen.

I mean, if you gave me somebody who is transsexual or a child molester I don't think I am (or will be) competent to work with either population, but I'm not somehow morally opposed.

I'm curious, what about a trans individual makes you feel you have a lack of competence? Granted your average therapist hasn't had to deal with trans or gender identity issues themselves but most of us haven't personally dealt with most of the issues we see. If a trans person had depression would you feel unable to treat the depression?

 

[wigflip]

I think what discourages so many people is that we know the recidivism rate for sex offenders and how basically very little works to change their behavior long-term. If someone developed, say, a DBT equivalent for pedophilia I think more people would be willing to work with them.

I'm not contesting this, but do you think it's more the recidivism factor or the "yuck factor"?

 

[cara susanna]

Probably both. I think it'd be easier to get over the "yuck" factor if you thought that you could genuinely help this person (and, as mentioned earlier, prevent these crimes from happening).

 

[Iwillheal]

I think what discourages so many people is that we know the recidivism rate for sex offenders and how basically very little works to change their behavior long-term. If someone developed, say, a DBT equivalent for pedophilia I think more people would be willing to work with them.

I can see this happening with myself too. If there is something I can do about it, if I can really help someone in a way that I deem significant, I be willing to expose myself to things that I find horrible (horrible, not "icky", a term which I feel makes a mockery of emotional reaction to terrible and terrifying human behavior, as if reactions to raping a helpless child is equivalent to a five-year-old's reaction to seeing a booger on his shirt).

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Do you mean that their clinical skills are only marginally competent, or that they are merely considered to be "bottom-of-the-barrel" (i.e. their work is stigmatized, so that stigma rubs off onto those clinicians)?

I mean that they're marginally competent.

I think my transgender acquaintances might object to that juxtaposition...

And I can see why they would, but both of those are specialized areas of practice that I don't have much (or any) expertise in. That's what the example was about, not saying they were the same thing.

I'm curious, what about a trans individual makes you feel you have a lack of competence? Granted your average therapist hasn't had to deal with trans or gender identity issues themselves but most of us haven't personally dealt with most of the issues we see. If a trans person had depression would you feel unable to treat the depression?

My curriculum plan includes nothing about gender identity disorder. It was mentioned in a psychopathology class, but that's all. That alone does not make me competent to treat it, I don't think. In most cases I'd probably make a referral wherever possible.

My classes have been focused almost exclusively on mood disorders and Axis II disorders. My school does offer a class on sexuality and social work, but it's focused mostly on gays and lesbians, and only offered on a day that I can never take it.

 

[Pragma]

I can see this happening with myself too. If there is something I can do about it, if I can really help someone in a way that I deem significant, I be willing to expose myself to things that I find horrible (horrible, not "icky", a term which I feel makes a mockery of emotional reaction to terrible and terrifying human behavior, as if reactions to raping a helpless child is equivalent to a five-year-old's reaction to seeing a booger on his shirt).

Fair enough. I'd urge you to be just as sensitive with your own language then (e.g., allude to Nazis as someone you have compassion for but sex offenders as "****ing swine"). Remember, many of these folks may have been victims of physical and sexual abuse themselves during childhood (which I recognize you said you don't care about).

I don't think it changes the point people are trying to make, which is that some psychologists might refuse to work with the population because it makes them feel uncomfortable/incapable of providing services for one reason or another.

 

[Pragma]

My curriculum plan includes nothing about gender identity disorder. It was mentioned in a psychopathology class, but that's all. That alone does not make me competent to treat it, I don't think. In most cases I'd probably make a referral wherever possible.

My classes have been focused almost exclusively on mood disorders and Axis II disorders. My school does offer a class on sexuality and social work, but it's focused mostly on gays and lesbians, and only offered on a day that I can never take it.

Well I'd imagine that based on roubs' point, you'd not be asked to treat gender identity disorder (a term itself which is the subject of controversy, and many folks don't consider it a pathology). You'd be asked to treat a transgendered individual for depression. It's important to consider the referral question in this situation, as they are two quite different things. Their gender identity may be a factor in treatment, but it is not their presenting problem.

I have no problem with making referrals to more appropriate providers (when they are available). But, you'll likely find in your career that you often have to take it upon yourself to do research and seek consultation from others to gain most information about a population you are unfamiliar with. What you learn in a course is generally miniscule in comparison to actual experience (supervised or with consultation), and in the real world the clinical picture is usually much more complicated than the DSM suggests. My graduate school psychopathology courses offered just a broad overview and I couldn't do an in-depth project on every disorder.

Now, you're right, undertaking treatment for an individual with compulsive sexual behaviors without experience is probably not a good idea. One would need to seek out interventions that fit their orientation and probably consult with someone with experience, at a minimum. A referral is probably more appropriate in this type of case because of how specialized this issue is. But just be careful - if everyone refused to see any clients with diagnoses that they did not encounter during graduate training, we'd have a real problem!

 

[roubs]

My curriculum plan includes nothing about gender identity disorder. It was mentioned in a psychopathology class, but that's all. That alone does not make me competent to treat it, I don't think. In most cases I'd probably make a referral wherever possible.

My classes have been focused almost exclusively on mood disorders and Axis II disorders. My school does offer a class on sexuality and social work, but it's focused mostly on gays and lesbians, and only offered on a day that I can never take it.

I'd note that the word "disorder" is about to be taken out of the diagnosis to be replaced with "gender dysphoria" -- I could understand not wanting to take a client if they were at square one with substantial distress regarding their dysphoria and that was the primary concern, but when you said " if you gave me somebody who is transsexual or a child molester I don't think I am (or will be) competent to work with either population" -- it left me with the impression that you felt it would be inappropriate to treat a post-transition transgendered individual for any general mental health concern because somehow their trans-ness somehow left them requiring someone with special training with that population.

 

[wigflip]

I'd note that the word "disorder" is about to be taken out of the diagnosis to be replaced with "gender dysphoria" -- I could understand not wanting to take a client if they were at square one with substantial distress regarding their dysphoria and that was the primary concern, but when you said " if you gave me somebody who is transsexual or a child molester I don't think I am (or will be) competent to work with either population" -- it left me with the impression that you felt it would be inappropriate to treat a post-transition transgendered individual for any general mental health concern because somehow their trans-ness somehow left them requiring someone with special training with that population.

I just want to note that I think I might have introduced the term "transgender" into the discussion, but Black Skirt Tetra used "transsexual" (which might have been intended to mean people who have had sex reassignment surgery or something else). I know roubs knows this, but for others reading, "transsexual" is sometimes taken to have a pejorative flavor. Most of the folks I know prefer "trans" or "transgender"--this is a broader, more inclusive umbrella term, and also shifts attention away from one's pre-/post-/non-operative status.

 

[wigflip]

My school does offer a class on sexuality and social work, but it's focused mostly on gays and lesbians, and only offered on a day that I can never take it.

This is one of the things that scares me about masters level training. Many of my (social work) peers evinced attitudes that suggested that they were not appropriate to provide services to sexual minority clients. And LGBT community politics were not incorporated into the policy classes either. You should have seen people's faces when I talked about Bayard Rustin on MLK Day. Making learning about LGBT issues and sexuality optional sends a really bad message to new clinicians.

 

[Qwerk]

This is one of the things that scares me about masters level training. Many of my (social work) peers evinced attitudes that suggested that they were not appropriate to provide services to sexual minority clients. And LGBT community politics were not incorporated into the policy classes either. You should have seen people's faces when I talked about Bayard Rustin on MLK Day. Making learning about LGBT issues and sexuality optional sends a really bad message to new clinicians.

This is a huge, huge problem. There's nothing in either the the CSWE standards about LGBTQ competence, which effectively leaves it to the discretion of individual schools and instructors. The CSWE did release a report in 2009 about sexual orientation and gender identity in social work curricula, the results of which which will hopefully be integrated into future standards -- emphasis on "hopefully." I don't know about CACREP. As This stuff needs to be integrated into the core curriculum, not shunted into electives that will only be taken by people who already have a clue about gay and trans issues. Trans issues in particular need to be represented in general classes instead of sexuality or psychopathology.

 

[wigflip]

Trans issues in particular need to be represented in general classes instead of sexuality or psychopathology.

Check it out, Qwerk, we agree!

Returning to the CSA issue, there's a phenomenal narrative film out called The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon. It relates to a lot of the questions recently debated on this thread. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, especially with regards to recidivism/redemption, it's thought-provoking. At the minimum, the trailer is worth a watch:

Trailer, cast and credits are here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361127/

I saw it in the theatre, so it's not fresh in my mind, but from the trailer it looks as though Michael Shannon might play Kevin Bacon's counselor. Which if you are a film buff is kind of funny because Michael Shannon gets cast as "the crazy guy" all the time (Bug; Take Shelter; Revolutionary Road; My Son, My Son, What Have You Done?).

 

[Pragma]

Check it out, Qwerk, we agree!

Returning to the CSA issue, there's a phenomenal narrative film out called The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon. It relates to a lot of the questions recently debated on this thread. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, especially with regards to recidivism/redemption, it's thought-provoking. At the minimum, the trailer is worth a watch:

Trailer, cast and credits are here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361127/

I saw it in the theatre, so it's not fresh in my mind, but from the trailer it looks as though Michael Shannon might play Kevin Bacon's counselor. Which if you are a film buff is kind of funny because Michael Shannon gets cast as "the crazy guy" all the time (Bug; Take Shelter; Revolutionary Road; My Son, My Son, What Have You Done?).

I watched that movie when it came out as well and thought it was great. Thanks for reminding me of it!

 

[Qwerk]

Check it out, Qwerk, we agree!

Returning to the CSA issue, there's a phenomenal narrative film out called The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon. It relates to a lot of the questions recently debated on this thread. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, especially with regards to recidivism/redemption, it's thought-provoking. At the minimum, the trailer is worth a watch:

Trailer, cast and credits are here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361127/

I saw it in the theatre, so it's not fresh in my mind, but from the trailer it looks as though Michael Shannon might play Kevin Bacon's counselor. Which if you are a film buff is kind of funny because Michael Shannon gets cast as "the crazy guy" all the time (Bug; Take Shelter; Revolutionary Road; My Son, My Son, What Have You Done?).

Haha, I guess we do!

Looks like an interesting movie -- I'll be sure to check it out. Do you ever read Dan Savage's column? He's answered letters several people who are what he terms "gold star pedophiles," meaning that they are attracted to children but don't want to act on these feelings. There are few programs (no programs?) or therapists for this population. No one seems to be interested in prevention -- just in locking up those who do offend.

Also, an interesting Slate article from a few years ago: http://www.slate.com/blogs/humannature/2008/12/16/is_this_child_pornography.html

The lengths to which child pornography laws stretch is astounding. I've even read about reputable artists who paint and photograph children being arrested. I'm left wondering whether the use of simulated images could actually help pedophiles refrain from offending, squicky as that might sound.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm guessing the use of simulated images wouldn't help. Rape pornography doesn't help rapists--in fact, it actually conditions them further. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to pedophilia.

 

[Qwerk]

I'm guessing the use of simulated images wouldn't help. Rape pornography doesn't help rapists--in fact, it actually conditions them further. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to pedophilia.

There's evidence that pedophilia is quite different from the impulse to rape -- that it's actually more similar to a sexual orientation than anything. So maybe simulated images wouldn't help those like Sandusky, who are violent and abusive toward their victims, but might help those who do not offend. Problem is, researchers only tend to study the ones who are more like adult-oriented rapists because that's the available sample.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I have class with someone who calls herself a transsexual, and she uses that exact word, so that's why I used it. Is "transgender" considered better? I'm not up to date on the most politically correct terminology. I'll use whatever word is best.

This is one of the things that scares me about masters level training. Many of my (social work) peers evinced attitudes that suggested that they were not appropriate to provide services to sexual minority clients. And LGBT community politics were not incorporated into the policy classes either. You should have seen people's faces when I talked about Bayard Rustin on MLK Day. Making learning about LGBT issues and sexuality optional sends a really bad message to new clinicians.

I am pretty certain that a lot of my classmates would not be in the program (i.e. would not be paying the university) if they were required to be taught on gay and lesbian and transsexual/transgender issues. They're a pretty conservative bunch. I would welcome it if it were a larger part of the curriculum, but as a single class that's on a day I can't work into my schedule, there's no way.

 

[Qwerk]

I have class with someone who calls herself a transsexual, and she uses that exact word, so that's why I used it. Is "transgender" considered better? I'm not up to date on the most politically correct terminology. I'll use whatever word is best.

I am pretty certain that a lot of my classmates would not be in the program (i.e. would not be paying the university) if they were required to be taught on gay and lesbian and transsexual/transgender issues. They're a pretty conservative bunch. I would welcome it if it were a larger part of the curriculum, but as a single class that's on a day I can't work into my schedule, there's no way.

That's unfortunate about your program. I hope you get the opportunity to help educate them.

Re: terminology, the word "transsexual" is used for people who feel that they were born in the wrong body, whether or not they've actually transitioned to living in that gender, have taken hormones, or have had surgery. "Transgender" is an umbrella term that includes transsexuals, crossdressers, genderqueer people, and anyone who doesn't fit into the major gender categories. Both are perfectly acceptable, although I think people have started using "transgender" more often to be more inclusive and to avoid assuming that someone has a particular wish or desire.

I transitioned when I was seventeen and now live full-time as a hairy, beer-swigging man. I tend to use "transgender" because "transsexual" sounds so...sexual. Makes me think of porno stores with neon signs.

 

[Iwillheal]

There's evidence that pedophilia is quite different from the impulse to rape -- that it's actually more similar to a sexual orientation than anything.

Oh, this is not good. Any attempt at trying to change a pedophilia orientation would then be like attempting to change a gay person's sexual orientation, and a big no-no. It will be next to impossible to try to "accept" these people and their desires as they are, and yet continue to see pedophilia as a horrendous crime. It would be like, Hey, you're allowed to be gay and feel that way about other guys as long as you don' t get even close to another guy.

 

[cara susanna]

Heh, this is making me think of NAMBLA. Not the National Marlon Brando Look A-Likes Association, the other one.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Oh, this is not good. Any attempt at trying to change a pedophilia orientation would then be like attempting to change a gay person's sexual orientation, and a big no-no. It will be next to impossible to try to "accept" these people and their desires as they are, and yet continue to see pedophilia as a horrendous crime. It would be like, Hey, you're allowed to be gay and feel that way about other guys as long as you don' t get even close to another guy.

Even if you do consider pedophilia a legitimate sexual orientation (I don't), your parallel still does not work. Here is why:

In heterosexuality or homosexuality, the two people involved in any relationship are consenting adults (or even consenting teenagers).

But in any act of pedophilia (or necrophilia or bestiality), by its nature, there can be no consent. A child (or a dead person or a horse) cannot consent. That's a huge difference.

I have no formal study at-hand to back that up. I would hope it would be common sense.

 

[Qwerk]

Oh, this is not good. Any attempt at trying to change a pedophilia orientation would then be like attempting to change a gay person's sexual orientation, and a big no-no. It will be next to impossible to try to "accept" these people and their desires as they are, and yet continue to see pedophilia as a horrendous crime. It would be like, Hey, you're allowed to be gay and feel that way about other guys as long as you don' t get even close to another guy.

Even if you do consider pedophilia a legitimate sexual orientation (I don't), your parallel still does not work. Here is why:

In heterosexuality or homosexuality, the two people involved in any relationship are consenting adults (or even consenting teenagers).

But in any act of pedophilia (or necrophilia or bestiality), by its nature, there can be no consent. A child (or a dead person or a horse) cannot consent. That's a huge difference.

I have no formal study at-hand to back that up. I would hope it would be common sense.

I certainly didn't mean that pedophilia should be an accepted sexual orientation. I meant that pedophilia seems to be more innate than previously thought, much like sexual orientation. Recent research suggests possible genetic and hormonal factors. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to treat pedophilic behavior and punish those who offend, just that it's always helpful to understand the origins of a disorder.

For this and other reasons, I actually don't like the argument that gays should be accepted because sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. They should be accepted, and orientation seems to be innate, but even if it were a choice, why would that make it right or wrong? Hell, driving a car is a choice, and an unnatural one at that. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and...um...a station wagon.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I don't think an orientation of homosexuality OR pedophilia is a choice.

But one is innately harmful, and the other isn't.

 

[Qwerk]

I don't think an orientation of homosexuality OR pedophilia is a choice.

But one is innately harmful, and the other isn't.

Yes, but the research suggests it might be more helpful to focus treatment on preventing pedophilic behavior than to attempt to "cure" pedophiles.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Yes, but the research suggests it might be more helpful to focus treatment on preventing pedophilic behavior than to attempt to "cure" pedophiles.

You mean in the manner of castration?

 

[Qwerk]

You mean in the manner of castration?

I can't say I'm certain what treatments are available for pedophiles, but the courts do sometimes mandate that an offender take anti-androgens as an alternative to going to jail. I've also heard of people voluntarily taking these drugs to reduce unwanted sexual impulses. I'm sure that there are other treatments and therapies, especially for those who haven't yet offended, but that's all the info I have.