Sandusky trial

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

From what I know, there aren't any effective treatments other than castration (whether physical or chemical).

I'd be interested in seeing studies of any treatments deemed effective...

 

[Qwerk]

I don't know about other chemical therapies, but there's a good literature review here if you can access it. Most, if not all, studies have been done with offenders, and the outcomes measured are usually recidivism rates. Summary: treatment in general (which included hormone therapy as well as cognitive-behavioral techniques) had a small but significant effect, controls were poor, sample sizes were small, and recidivism rates were a generally problematic way to measure outcome.

 

[Iwillheal]

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

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

Well, have you ever spoken to someone who has been accused of pedophilia? Some do believe that what they are doing is NOT harmful. That they are being loving to children and children do appreciate this. And of course, they would also say who are we to decide for children what they want and at what age they have the competence to decide things. If the children don't oppose their advances, that means they like their attention and so forth, and a therapist or anybody else has no say in the matter, in what children SHOULD want or what is best for them.
I was once at a pedophile forum online and one person argued that us seeing children as incompetent is ageism and similar to sexism and those traditional folks who thought women were not smart or competent enough to have a say in things and it was always the husbands who would speak on their behalves. S/he said that it's one thing to say a kid can't be competent to drive but another to say the kid can't decide what feels good to him/her.
Of course, if you don't buy this, they could still argue that as long as they are not in contact with kids, they are not causing anybody any potential harm. In other words, it's the acting on the impulse that's potentially harmful, not having those feelings or desires. And they may request that you respect their desires and so forth because from a humanistic point of view, we should respect that people are different and have different desires, different needs, etc.

The above opinions are not to be confused with MY opinions nor with opinions of ALL people who are pedophiles.

 

[wigflip]

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.

Qwerk, we're really on a roll today...again, I agree!

Re: the "sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable" discourse:

The argument has utility in building anti-discrimination legislation. If one argues that "gays and lesbians can't help but be that way" (read with heavy dose of sarcasm), then it is easier to define them as a class requiring protection from discrimination under the law. Of course this is where bi- and queer-identified folks fall through the cracks.

 

[wigflip]

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

Mine was like that too (as Qwerk knows all too well 😎).

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.

From my experience, "transgender" is safer. Some argue that "transsexual" is a medicalized term and reject it on that count. In talking to individual people I'd use whatever terminology they use to refer to themselves. I got my ass chewed (and rightly so) for referring to a client as "transgendered" when she considered herself a woman. Period.

 

[cara susanna]

I've heard that aversion therapy works short-term, but it does not have good long-term outcomes.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Mine was like that too (as Qwerk knows all too well 😎).



From my experience, "transgender" is safer. Some argue that "transsexual" is a medicalized term and reject it on that count. In talking to individual people I'd use whatever terminology they use to refer to themselves. I got my ass chewed (and rightly so) for referring to a client as "transgendered" when she considered herself a woman. Period.

A former co-worker (who has close ties to the trans community) just uses "trans*"

It seems like a good catchall to me, though I don't profess to know a lot about the topic myself.

 

[Iwillheal]

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 "**** 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).


Pragma, I was going to say that I already did elaborate that I can "humanize anybody" which you have overlooked...and leave it at that. Upon further reflection, however, I do think that me saying what I said, even if out of anger, does come across as rather extreme and cruel. I then tried to imagine reading somebody saying something similar after some publicized trial, somebody saying I have no f***g sympathy for women, communists, gays, terrorists, warmongers, dictators, Jews, Arabs, feminists, blacks, mass murderers, Americans, Nazis, rapists, soldiers, animal abusers, torturers, psychopaths, etc. It didn't sound good. It sounded as if some people are not people merely because they have done things or believe things that some or all of us find terribly repulsive, horrifying, or extremely harmful.

So I like to apologize for potentially upsetting you or other people. This is my bias, yes, which is why I can't yet work with pedophiles. And I do acknowledge that some were indeed abused as children themselves though I don't know much about those studies or if past abuse was seen as causative. When I was speaking of pedophilia, or animal abuse for that matter, I made some lazy generalizations, and it would have been more helpful to focus on a particular subgroup of abusers instead.

Regardless, I hope we can still debate this matter, in particular the issue what kind of abuse is "worse." Because personally I don't buy into this view that suffering is suffering and hence abuse is abuse and that they're all equal. I do think there must be a way to compare them, and I think this is essential when we need to decide how to allocate money/resources/time to this cause vs another.

 

[Pragma]

Regardless, I hope we can still debate this matter, in particular the issue what kind of abuse is "worse." Because personally I don't buy into this view that suffering is suffering and hence abuse is abuse and that they're all equal. I do think there must be a way to compare them, and I think this is essential when we need to decide how to allocate money/resources/time to this cause vs another.

Why debate it in this context? You certainly have a right to, but abuse is such a subjective issue altogether. If you are concerned about how to allocate money and resources, I suppose an epidemiological study might be helpful. But what money and resources are you talking about? Incarceration is extremely costly and doesn't generally work (see 80% recidivism rate).

I'm a psychologist, not a judge, jury, or executioner. I also believe that people deserve to have services even when they have committed violent offenses. Not just because there is a high likelihood that they may be caught up in an abuse cycle themselves, but because I think that it is a fundamental right.

I get the sense that you are looking for justification for ostracising an entire group of people professionally, beyond the fact that you have personal issues with that group of people. I don't see how that is productive.

 

[Pragma]

And I do acknowledge that some were indeed abused as children themselves though I don't know much about those studies or if past abuse was seen as causative.

I am no expert in this area, but I did find this meta-analysis about sex abuse histories among sex offenders vs. other offenders.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213409000374

 

[wigflip]

A former co-worker (who has close ties to the trans community) just uses "trans*"

It seems like a good catchall to me, though I don't profess to know a lot about the topic myself.

In my experience "trans" is probably a better "insider" term (i.e. intelligible to LGBTIQA folks, activists and sexuality researchers), but people unfamiliar with trans issues don't know what you're talking about. If I were writing or speaking on the topic I'd probably use "transgender," depending on the context.

 

[Iwillheal]

Why debate it in this context? You certainly have a right to, but abuse is such a subjective issue altogether. If you are concerned about how to allocate money and resources, I suppose an epidemiological study might be helpful. But what money and resources are you talking about? Incarceration is extremely costly and doesn't generally work (see 80% recidivism rate).

I'm a psychologist, not a judge, jury, or executioner. I also believe that people deserve to have services even when they have committed violent offenses. Not just because there is a high likelihood that they may be caught up in an abuse cycle themselves, but because I think that it is a fundamental right.

I get the sense that you are looking for justification for ostracising an entire group of people professionally, beyond the fact that you have personal issues with that group of people. I don't see how that is productive.

Pragma, I get the sense that you don't let things go even after somebody apologizes and wants to start anew. Perhaps pedophilia is not just a hot-button issue with me. I was hoping to engage in a philosophical debate about abuse in general but I can see you like to stick to strictly psychological view of things and further question my motive--as opposed to coherence and logic of arguments I could put forth. Which is perhaps a very small reminder of how easy it is for us to stigmatize others whose views or actions or reactions we do not approve of. But that's fine, as you wish. Perhaps the issue of abuse will come up in a different and more neutral context and can be discussed in more details then.

 

[Pragma]

Pragma, I get the sense that you don't let things go even after somebody apologizes and wants to start anew. Perhaps pedophilia is not just a hot-button issue with me. I was hoping to engage in a philosophical debate about abuse in general but I can see you like to stick to strictly psychological view of things and further question my motive--as opposed to coherence and logic of arguments I could put forth. Which is perhaps a very small reminder of how easy it is for us to stigmatize others whose views or actions or reactions we do not approve of. But that's fine, as you wish. Perhaps the issue of abuse will come up in a different and more neutral context and can be discussed in more details then.

Well, this is a "psychology" forum. If you want to view yourself as a victim of stigmatization because I don't agree with your characterization of sex offenders as "***** swine" compared to other offenders, then fine, you are a victim of stigmatization.

 

[roubs]

Pragma, I get the sense that you don't let things go even after somebody apologizes and wants to start anew. Perhaps pedophilia is not just a hot-button issue with me. I was hoping to engage in a philosophical debate about abuse in general but I can see you like to stick to strictly psychological view of things and further question my motive--as opposed to coherence and logic of arguments I could put forth. Which is perhaps a very small reminder of how easy it is for us to stigmatize others whose views or actions or reactions we do not approve of. But that's fine, as you wish. Perhaps the issue of abuse will come up in a different and more neutral context and can be discussed in more details then.

Stigmatize? The poster dost protest too much, methinks.

 

[Iwillheal]

I am no expert in this area, but I did find this meta-analysis about sex abuse histories among sex offenders vs. other offenders.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213409000374

Thank you. I only glanced at the meta analysis but I have read a few papers of Seto in the past. In one of his recent papers,Seto concluded that there is no evidence indicating that pedophilia can be changed but he did once again note that correlation between pedophilia and childhood sexual abuse.

 

[Iwillheal]

Well, this is a "psychology" forum. If you want to view yourself as a victim of stigmatization because I don't agree with your characterization of sex offenders as "***** swine" compared to other offenders, then fine, you are a victim of stigmatization.

Lol, you don't have a sense of humor? I was trying to point out a certain irony and also draw attention to how hard it must be to stay engaged with people whose actions or thoughts we do not agree with. I suppose I should have used a 😉 or something. But no, you did not victimize me or anything like that. And as far as your first point, as you are aware, psychology does not exist in vacuum. Philosophy is related. It's not like I brought up quantum mechanics. As you know, psychotherapy has certain philosophical foundations. Think about humanism, existentialism, and so forth. Surely we did not choose to believe in those philosophies because in some lab somewhere somebody did a double blind study which showed existentialism was more "productive" or "healthy" or "functional" or whatever than some other philosophy. But yes, you are right, this is a psych forum and perhaps I should have clarified specifically what sort of debate I had in mind. But I personally feel like there should be room for those debates in this forum. I don't have the answers and I don't think any of us here really do. But debating values and those kinds of things can perhaps help us gain certain clarity about ourselves and the field?

 

[Pragma]

Lol, you don't have a sense of humor? I was trying to point out a certain irony and also draw attention to how hard it must be to stay engaged with people whose actions or thoughts we do not agree with. I suppose I should have used a 😉 or something. But no, you did not victimize me or anything like that. And as far as your first point, as you are aware, psychology does not exist in vacuum. Philosophy is related. It's not like I brought up quantum mechanics. As you know, psychotherapy has certain philosophical foundations. Think about humanism, existentialism, and so forth. Surely we did not choose to believe in those philosophies because in some lab somewhere somebody did a double blind study which showed existentialism was more "productive" or "healthy" or "functional" or whatever than some other philosophy. But yes, you are right, this is a psych forum and perhaps I should have clarified specifically what sort of debate I had in mind. But I personally feel like there should be room for those debates in this forum. I don't have the answers and I don't think any of us here really do. But debating values and those kinds of things can perhaps help us gain certain clarity about ourselves and the field?

If you knew me, you'd know I find humor in just about anything. Your post didn't seem sarcastic. But no matter.

There is of course room for philosophical debate. But as you know, most often those debates end up just coming down to opinions. Opinions are a lot like a certain body part that everyone has. After years of undergraduate/graduate school and philosophical/political debates (and plenty of opinions that I feel dumber for hearing), sometimes I just prefer to talk about things...pragmatically. 😉

I started this thread thinking it would turn into a discussion about ethics in forensic evaluations and "hired guns" doing evals for $. Silly me!

 

[Iwillheal]

Hahah. Yeah, so that's the story of your name then. Stupid me, I did not pick up on it. Could have saved us both a headache. Okay, I am going to stop posting here and hopefully you will be able to have the discussion about ethics in forensic evaluation. I may have scared everybody off, not with the pedophilia talk as much as philosophy stuff. 😉

 

[audchik]

Regardless, I hope we can still debate this matter, in particular the issue what kind of abuse is "worse." Because personally I don't buy into this view that suffering is suffering and hence abuse is abuse and that they're all equal. I do think there must be a way to compare them, and I think this is essential when we need to decide how to allocate money/resources/time to this cause vs another.

Well, (maybe I'm in the minority here, but) I certainly enjoy the philosophical debate that this issue presents. I'd still like to hear what you mean by this. You say you're talking philosophically, so what exactly is your argument for how to determine what type of suffering is worse? I'm assuming you're talking about a moral/ethical philosophical viewpoint. Subjectivism?

 

[wigflip]

I started this thread thinking it would turn into a discussion about ethics in forensic evaluations and "hired guns" doing evals for $. Silly me!

Okay, I just went back to the beginning of the thread and it looks like I was the one who trucked out from the Axis II/forensic evals discussion to a larger discussion of the trial itself. Sorry about that.

Did anyone determine what the credentials of the doc who Dxed Histrionic PD were? I'd think they'd need to call someone credible for it to have been even worthwhile, no?

 

[Pragma]

Okay, I just went back to the beginning of the thread and it looks like I was the one who trucked out from the Axis II/forensic evals discussion to a larger discussion of the trial itself. Sorry about that.

Did anyone determine what the credentials of the doc who Dxed Histrionic PD were? I'd think they'd need to call someone credible for it to have been even worthwhile, no?

I looked up the person and it was an EdD from the East coast somewhere. That's about all I could tell before having to get back to work...

 

[Pragma]

If you can't tell, I'm having a little trouble staying on task at work today 😀

Here's the dude. Don't know much about him.

https://www.psychologynj.org/directory/394

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

If you can't tell, I'm having a little trouble staying on task at work today 😀

Here's the dude. Don't know much about him.

https://www.psychologynj.org/directory/394

That's interesting...I can see why they called him as a witness (he lists his expertise to be in sexual abuse and sex offenders, which I'm assuming means he sees a lot of clients with these issues, or at the very least he has gotten a lot of training working with these populations)...but no where on there does he list personality disorders as one of his specialties

 

[KillerDiller]

I'm curious what people would like to see as sufficient enough evidence for the diagnosis.
As future psychologists, we all know that diagnosing mental illness isn't an exact science, especially when we're talking about the personality disorders. It seems that histrionic PD is one of the disorders least supported by research at this point. Considering the lack of reliable testing for it--as far as I know of anyway--it pretty much seems like the dx boils down to a matter of opinion. Who is to say where to draw the line between what is considered "excessively" impressionistic or what constitutes "exaggerated" emotions. I don't know, I just don't see the debate over whether or not Sandusky has this poorly-defined diagnosis as all that interesting. I understand why it matters in the trial, but I can't really see getting my feathers ruffled because another professional set different standards for the dx than I maybe would have. At least he met with Sandusky and interviewed him--more than I can say for all the psychologists who like to diagnose celebrities they've never met 🙄.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

I just would have liked to see the reasons behind his diagnosis, which they did not include in any of the articles...maybe they did in the trial and it would be in the trial transcript, but from what I read the psychologist didn't even give a justification for his diagnosis, and the only thing he listed (I don't even remember what exactly it was, something related to grooming) was not remotely related to any histrionic PD criteria...that's the only reason for my skepticism.

 

[Pragma]

I understand why it matters in the trial, but I can't really see getting my feathers ruffled because another professional set different standards for the dx than I maybe would have. At least he met with Sandusky and interviewed him--more than I can say for all the psychologists who like to diagnose celebrities they've never met 🙄.

Yeah that is a fair point. Obviously we lack information about this specific case. I recall having a discussion in my program when the Blagojevich stuff was going on about the idiot psychologists going on the news and diagnosing the guy.

I think my initial reaction to the news was skeptical for two reasons.

1) First, I know Axis II personality diagnoses are very unreliable (and potentially hogwash) compared to Axis I diagnoses. Not saying that personality pathology does not exist, but I think our diagnostic system sucks largely because it is too subjective. The research shows that these disorders are unstable over time and highly correlated with each other and Axis I disorders. I haven't read up on all of the DSM-V changes, but I know they are significant. I hear it is more Big 5 related rather than these laundry lists of symptoms.

2) I have had minimal involvement in forensic casework, but from what I have done I have seen (and been told stories by my supervisors about) psychologists who will say whatever they are hired to say, or make the data reach a conclusion that is going to appease the side of the case that hired them. It is a lucrative business.

In a highly publicized case like this, that combination of factors led to my gag reflex initiating. I also cringe at the thought that someone might get "Guilty but mentally ill" in order to avoid hard time due to an Axis II diagnosis. Not sure if it has ever happened, but I would be sad if it had.

 

[JoeTinker]

I'm an RA for a psychiatrist who went on the local news and diagnosed Charlie Sheen as bipolar and histrionic. Everyone in the lab thought it was so cool to have him on TV; posting on Facebook, etc. Cannot wait to start my program this fall.

 

[KillerDiller]

I think my initial reaction to the news was skeptical for two reasons.

1) First, I know Axis II personality diagnoses are very unreliable (and potentially hogwash) compared to Axis I diagnoses. Not saying that personality pathology does not exist, but I think our diagnostic system sucks largely because it is too subjective. The research shows that these disorders are unstable over time and highly correlated with each other and Axis I disorders. I haven't read up on all of the DSM-V changes, but I know they are significant. I hear it is more Big 5 related rather than these laundry lists of symptoms.

Yeah, this exactly.

As for the end of your post, I believe the offenders who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are then institutionalized--so it's not like they are walking around scott free. I suppose this wouldn't be the case for minor offenses, though. I'm not completely certain what would happen in those cases.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, this exactly.

As for the end of your post, I believe the offenders who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are then institutionalized--so it's not like they are walking around scott free. I suppose this wouldn't be the case for minor offenses, though. I'm not completely certain what would happen in those cases.

Yeah they are placed in a secure treatment setting if they are GBMI. I know they aren't free, but it is probably a cakewalk compared to being in the general population.

 

[Qwerk]

I think this question was raised at the beginning of the thread. I'm wondering why histrionic personality disorder is a criminal defense to begin with. I haven't done a lot of forensic psych reading, but I've never heard of a personality disorder being used in this way. Was he trying to argue diminished capacity? You'd think that this would conflict with his assertion that he did nothing wrong. Anyone with legal expertise care to weigh in?

 

[KillerDiller]

I didn't really follow the trial, but my impression was that he was not using it as an attempt at an insanity defense. I thought the histrionic PD was presented as an alternate reason for the letters he wrote to the children, because the prosecution was claiming that they constituted grooming behavior.

 

[vesper9]

sorry to go back to the sex offenders topic, but i wanted to share a few thoughts based on my clinical experience.

First, to say that some percentage of people convicted for sexual crimes were abused as children, is sort of hindsight. I've come to think of it more like a small number of my clients who have been sexually abused may have or may in the future perpetrate sexual abuse. This has definitely been the case in my work with victims. So I would caution against making assumptions that only people that have been convicted of a crime actually perpetrate them. Furthermore, I've heard several stories of clients trying to get help before they perpetrated but not receiving much beyond "don't do it" due to stigma and lack of information (BTW that advice failed miserably as it does for many other things people try just not do!)

That is why, I don't think it is helpful to try to draw bright lines on who you would or wouldn't work with...because you really don't know what people have and haven't done. Regardless of whether a client has a sexual abuse history or not, they may have already committed a crime for which they didn't get caught. We are not mind readers and clients don't come with scarlet letters emblazoned on their chests. So be prepared to be surprised by both your clients and your ability to empathize with previously unthinkable experiences. At least that has been the case for me.

ever since I've been doing this work, I've had a strong desire that society talk about this more openly...the acts are certainly heinous, but the perpetrators aren't always as clear cut and I've been floored by the generational transmission of such traumas (e.g. grandparent molests parent who abuses their child who subsequently abuses their child) Something more than just dismissing these individuals needs to be done if we really want to address the issue IMHO. thanks for reading.

just wanted to add that this is my professional opinion (as a psychologist), which has been difficult to reconcile with my previous personal convictions that people who commit sex crimes are evil. But that's the interesting thing with this kind of work, it challenges a lot of my "lay person" assumptions and opinions.

 

[cara susanna]

Histrionic PD is an unreliable and, according to some research, poor validity diagnosis to begin with.

 

[Iwillheal]

There have been two posts regarding this subject so I will reply now. First, Vesper9, thank you for sharing your views on this. It's especially helpful because it's based on your clinical experience. I do agree with you that only a small percentage of people who have been sexually abused go on to commit those kinds of abuses themselves. I am not sure if I agree with your comment about drawling lines though. I can't work with people who abuse animals or children at present. Because of a unique undergraduate experience, I have been exposed to people with all kinds of issues. Certain issues really boil my blood. And as you may have seen earlier, I have an emotional reaction to them which is difficult to control in a therapeutic situation. So I try to avoid them as much as possible. I know people who may not exactly refuse to work with psychotic patients or psychopaths or cluster B patients...but find reasons/excuses to pass them on to other people. I'm talking private practice of course. Elsewhere you can't be choosy.

True story, I know a therapist who as soon as his patient admitted to him that she had sued her last two therapists, he got up and asked the patient to leave and refused to speak to her or explain himself more. Can you believe that? Only a stupid and selfish therapist would act in a such a manner. And I will certainly try not to traumatize a pedophile and ask the person to leave immediately or something inhumane like that. But knowing myself, I would be worried that as this person starts going into the details I may have a strong emotional reaction and despite not voicing my anger, the patient will be able to read it from my body language. More importantly, I know that I'm at my best when I have my emotions under control and so I really doubt if I would be able to help this person. So I will find a gentle way of letting the person know during the next couple of sessions that this is not my area of expertise and I'm afraid I won't have the competence to help them process that stuff. And hopefully refer the person to someone more competent and understanding than myself.

Now I suspect that some people on here don't think much of my humanity. Perhaps they think my "logic" could be used in justifying refusing to work with a murderer or a terrorist or warmonger...then transgenders, homosexuals, Arabs, Jews...women, old people, blacks...? Slippery slope, right? This may be especially pertinent because as some have mentioned, there is some evidence that pedophilia bears some similarity to sexual orientation. So it's not like a thief who is labeled so only because of a certain act. Pedophilia may be more central to that person's identity in fact and my refusing to work with the person may be seen as me refusing to work with a gay person because I find homosexual sexual acts "icky" (to borrow a term from Pragma.) It would be me devaluing who a person really is. And I think about these things from time to time because the consequences can be quite grave. Hence I reflect on this issue and take this very seriously.

Thank you for stating that this is your "professional opinion." Sometimes I get confused if people are talking to me as therapists or as themselves or if there are no differences, if therapy is not merely a profession but a way of life.

AUDCHIK: yes, subjectivism would be one view. My view would be that subjectivism is not all there is. That two people may claim that their suffering is 10/10, max possible suffering, but one happens to have an awful headache and another is in a prison and getting tortured. These two cases are not the same. That does not mean we should ignore the person with the horrible headache. To HER, the headache is horrible and she needs help and it's human to help and inhuman to disregard her pleas. I have had bad headaches so when a part of my mind was begging for sweet death, I knew I was suffering tremendously all right. And my argument about child abuse was not that only children suffer and adults should put up with whatever horror happens to them. But that the longterm consequences, the shame, the lack of internal/external resources, inability to make sense and compare this experience with others, make the child abuse "worse" in some way. Yes, I can't be more specific and my view is on shaky ground and that's why I wanted to discuss this because I felt my position was not strong enough and I wanted to hear different views on this and sharpen my own position.

 

[vesper9]

I guess the point I was making is that you don't know how you will feel or react when this happens to you. For me, my reaction was much more different than I would have predicted and that was mostly due to the complex web of situational, personality, and social factors involved in the case. On the other hand, other disclosures or client experiences may also affect you in ways you didn't expect.

I think maybe one of the reasons you're having a hard time engaging others in a philosophical debate is that you're intellectualizing things you haven't experienced (e.g. The description of what you THINK you would do in a theoretical therapy session)

It's great you're thinking about these issues. Consider that many clients who have been victims of some kind of abuse will tell you about it in detail (especially if you do PE or CPT) so it might be a good idea to get extra supervision around the issue even if you don't expect to work with those who perpetrate. I think most therapists find hearing the details difficult, so you're not unique in that.

 

[Iwillheal]

I think maybe one of the reasons you're having a hard time engaging others in a philosophical debate is that you're intellectualizing things you haven't experienced (e.g. The description of what you THINK you would do in a theoretical therapy session)

Yes, that's perceptive of you.

 

[psychgirl77]

Here's an interesting commentary on whether pedophiles 'deserve sympathy'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

And a video link to an interview with the author of the commentary:

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/pl...deo&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1&referrer=

 

[wigflip]

Here's an interesting commentary on whether pedophiles 'deserve sympathy'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

And a video link to an interview with the author of the commentary:

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/pl...deo&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1&referrer=

Very thought-provoking. Thanks for posting.

 

[Pragma]

Yes, interesting commentary. Thanks.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Histrionic PD is an unreliable and, according to some research, poor validity diagnosis to begin with.

Do you have any recommended references about this?

 

[futureapppsy2]

Here's an interesting commentary on whether pedophiles 'deserve sympathy'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

And a video link to an interview with the author of the commentary:

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/pl...deo&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1&referrer=

I found this depressing, actually. If pediophilia is an in-born sexual attraction, then it seems like actually preventing them from acting on their sexual impulses is a Sisyphean task (c.f., the huge failure of "reparative" therapy for GLB people). Of course, there obviously are people who choose to be celibate for life, but in general, lifelong suppression of sexual impulse is very uncommon. Given that child molestation is often extremely damaging to the victims, the notion that pediophilia is often (always?) in-born has depressing implications in terms of child sexual abuse.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I found this depressing, actually. If pediophilia is an in-born sexual attraction than it seems like actually preventing them from acting on their sexual impulses is a Sisyphean task (c.f., the huge failure of "reparative" therapy for GLB people). Of course, there obviously are people who choose to be celibate for life, but in general, lifelong suppression of sexual impulse is very uncommon. Given that child molestation is often extremely damaging to the victims, the notion that pediophilia is often (always?) in-born has depressing implications in terms of child sexual abuse.

That's correct. It seems to me that pedophilia is an inborn sexual orientation on-par with heterosexuality or homosexuality, except that it targets minors who cannot legally or ethically consent to sexual conduct.

By the way, I remembered the name of the prison/hospital I mentioned earlier in this thread. It's called Coalinga State Mental Hospital. California sends many of its untreatable repeat sexual offenders there for life. That's basically "throwing away" human life, but it's the only realistic option with that population.

 

[wigflip]

an inborn sexual orientation on-par with heterosexuality or homosexuality

I realize that we're on a psychology board and that the above view may represent the predominant thought in the discipline, but I also wanted to remind folks that not everyone who studies sexuality thinks about it (heterosexuality and "homosexuality") in this light. There are different ways of conceiving of sexual identity and behavior, and their relationship to each other and to culture. The "inborn" perspective has legal utility (in terms of defining a particular class of people who should be protected from discrimination), but limitations and shortcomings as well.

 

[Pragma]

I realize that we're on a psychology board and that the above view may represent the predominant thought in the discipline, but I also wanted to remind folks that not everyone who studies sexuality thinks about it (heterosexuality and "homosexuality") in this light. There are different ways of conceiving of sexual identity and behavior, and their relationship to each other and to culture. The "inborn" perspective has legal utility (in terms of defining a particular class of people who should be protected from discrimination), but limitations and shortcomings as well.

Yeah I didn't want to touch that one, mostly because I don't know enough about it. It seems like if you aren't from the "born this way" perspective (which, by the way, there is a fair amount of research to support), you can risk being ostracized by folks focused on political issues such as gay marriage.

 

[wigflip]

Yeah I didn't want to touch that one, mostly because I don't know enough about it. It seems like if you aren't from the "born this way" perspective (which, by the way, there is a fair amount of research to support), you can risk being ostracized by folks focused on political issues such as gay marriage.

Yes, that's where the legal utility of the argument comes in. And I understand that certain strains of research indicate that men who identify as "gay" in particular have a sense of same-sex desire having been constant and unchangeable throughout the lifespan. Note that, generally speaking, this is much more true for men than for women.

What I'm talking about is that culture plays a role in the way we organize our sexual identities, desires, and practices (which people often conflate, and which are shaped by socio-historical influences). Mainstream contemporary North American culture considers sexual identity to be tied to sexual object choice, not sexual role, but for most of history, people have not thought about their sexuality in this way, and many groups and individuals still organize sexual identity according to sexual role rather than sexual object choice.

 

[Iwillheal]

...Note that, generally speaking, this is much more true for men than for women.

...Mainstream contemporary North American culture considers sexual identity to be tied to sexual object choice, not sexual role, but for most of history, people have not thought about their sexuality in this way, and many groups and individuals still organize sexual identity according to sexual role rather than sexual object choice.

Wigflip, where can I read more about these two points you've made?

 

[wigflip]

Wigflip, where can I read more about these two points you've made?

I think you'll find database searches in history, anthropology, and sociology particularly helpful. Try searching for terms like "same-sex sexuality" and "activo and pasivo roles."

Chauncey's Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 (history) is a classic, as is Kulick's Travesti: Sex, Gender and Culture Among Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes (anthropology).

 

[Iwillheal]

Thank you. The second book looks interesting. Though apparently some reviewers felt the account was sensationalized (pretty much always an accusation leveled against unique anthropological research of this kind), most found it illuminating and fascinating.

 

[Pragma]

Seemed worth a bump today...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-gets-30-to-60-years-for-child-sex-abuse?lite

 

[wigflip]

Great update--thanks, Pragma.

I found this both typical and appalling:

"Saying he had been advised against speaking at length, Sandusky told Cleland that "as I began to relive everything, I remember my feelings. So many people were hurt, and my eyes filled with tears. It was a horrible time in life to witness, to listen to, be a part of."

Wow.