Was Michael Jackson a Pedophile?

[cmuhooligan]

I know that some on this board have been critical of Michael Bailey, but here is a link to a recent blog he wrote:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/j_michael_bailey/was_michael_jackson_pedophile

I found it interesting, but I can't say that I agree with all points he made.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Quynh2007]

I just skimmed the first part of it. personally, I don't think he is. I do think he has a mental illness, but not pedophilia.

 

[KillerDiller]

Thankfully Bailey reiterates the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia. This has been a point of contention between myself and some of my professors/peers for a while now.

 

[JockNerd]

Thankfully Bailey reiterates the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia. This has been a point of contention between myself and some of my professors/peers for a while now.

Your profs and peers have difficulty recognizing the distinction between sexual attraction to a 15-year-old and sexual attraction to a 3-year-old?

Interesting blog. Some correct points and some of Bailey's opinion marketed as fact--very similar to his research.

 

[KillerDiller]

Your profs and peers have difficulty recognizing the distinction between sexual attraction to a 15-year-old and sexual attraction to a 3-year-old?

Yes, unfortunately. We had a discussion in one of my non-clinical classes during which everyone dismissed my attempt to separate the two categories.

 

[psychmama]

Yes, unfortunately. We had a discussion in one of my non-clinical classes during which everyone dismissed my attempt to separate the two categories.

JN and KD- If there is a valid distinction, why is this important?

 

[JockNerd]

JN and KD- If there is a valid distinction, why is this important?

Is it not clear? Attraction to a 3-year-old and attraction at a 15-year-old? It seems like a clear distinction to me.

If you want an explanation, there are several. My favorite is that we have an entirely socially-constructed definition of adulthood. In many cultures, people are adults when they're sexually mature. Our disdain for attraction to pubescent kids (which, just to be clear, because sometimes saying this makes people think you're attracted to kids for some weird reason, I share) is entirely socially constructed (based on things like collective decisions that people under a particular age--different in each state and for what KIND of sex--aren't mature enough to make sexual decisions). So, pathologizing attraction to pubescent kids is a social decision. Attraction to pre-pubescent kids is more clearly pathological, I think.

 

[cara susanna]

As much as I hate armchair diagnoses, I think you could make a pretty good case for him having Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Also, it's kind of annoying the way Bailey tries to convince us that Jackson did molest the kids without really providing any evidence beyond "My lawyer friends and I thought this was likely." I'm not saying it's impossible, and I am aware that very few reports of sexual abuse tend to be false, but no one will ever know for sure because, well, we weren't there.

 

[Thrak]

Our disdain for attraction to pubescent kids (which, just to be clear, because sometimes saying this makes people think you're attracted to kids for some weird reason, I share) is entirely socially constructed (based on things like collective decisions that people under a particular age--different in each state and for what KIND of sex--aren't mature enough to make sexual decisions). So, pathologizing attraction to pubescent kids is a social decision. Attraction to pre-pubescent kids is more clearly pathological, I think.

I feel a big factor that supports that view is the age of consent laws for heterosexual sex in countries/territories throughout the world. While the high limit seems to be 18, the lower limit tends to be around 13 or 14, with 15-17 being pretty common. Meaning, it seems that sexual activity before puberty is universally rejected.

 

[psychmama]

Is it not clear? Attraction to a 3-year-old and attraction at a 15-year-old? It seems like a clear distinction to me. . . .

So, pathologizing attraction to pubescent kids is a social decision. Attraction to pre-pubescent kids is more clearly pathological, I think.

I don't disagree that pathologizing attraction to pubescent kids is a social construction, but why is it "more pathological" to be attracted to pre-pubescent kids? Are we saying that it's more biologically understandable that a person might be attracted to a 14 year-old than an 8 year-old? And assuming this is true, does this equate to making the behavior less harmful to the victim?

I think I'm especially sensitive to this issue because I have counseled clients who suffered sexual abuse in early adolescence. Call it what you want, it's very destructive and takes years to recover from (if ever). Of course, I understand that we're having more of a theoretical debate here, which is fine. I just wanted to hear your rationale for the distinction. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Wildcat06]

As much as I hate armchair diagnoses, I think you could make a pretty good case for him having Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Also, it's kind of annoying the way Bailey tries to convince us that Jackson did molest the kids without really providing any evidence beyond "My lawyer friends and I thought this was likely." I'm not saying it's impossible, and I am aware that very few reports of sexual abuse tend to be false, but no one will ever know for sure because, well, we weren't there.

I didn't get that sense at all. I took it as, we don't know for sure, but if he was a hebephile, here's what that looks like.

 

[KillerDiller]

My short answers to your questions 🙂:

Are we saying that it's more biologically understandable that a person might be attracted to a 14 year-old than an 8 year-old?

Yes. At least, this is my take on it.

And assuming this is true, does this equate to making the behavior less harmful to the victim?

No. As you said, it's more of a theoretical distinction than a practical or legal one. It doesn't mean that those who make the distinction are against punishing offenders who victimize adolescents. Murder and rape are understandable from the perspective of a biological imperative--this doesn't make the victims any less dead or devastated and doesn't make the crimes any less real.

 

[Wildcat06]

does this equate to making the behavior less harmful to the victim?

I don't think that anyone was saying that. I think we all agree that these behaviors are detrimental to the victim, especially since legally and developmentally a person of that age is not able to consent. The discussion was simply about the difference in these types of attraction. I think it's hard to argue that sexual attraction to a 14 year old is less pathological than attraction to a 3 year old by virtue of the child's development.

I too work with a population that has a high instance of sexual abuse. A couple of my teenage clients have even engaged in prostitution. I can understand why grown men are attracted to them but I would in NO WAY condone the men's behaviors.

 

[psychmama]

Wildcat, et al... I understand your point, and it's well-taken. However, I think defining "pathology" is a socio-cultural-legal construction, and as such defining one thing as more pathological than another is sort of what we lawyers call a "slippery slope". 😉 Nonethless, society must draw the line somewhere.

So does this all mean MJ (assuming he was in fact attracted to 12-14 y.o. males) is not as deviant as a person who's attracted to younger boys? Legally he's just as culpable assuming sexual involvement before age of consent.

 

[cara susanna]

Wildcat06: I dunno, he just seemed to keep saying "And I think he did this."

From what I learned about sex offender assessment, the penile plethysmograph (sp?) shows both pictures of teenagers and stories about them. If the offender is aroused by the picture, it's not considered deviant but if he's aroused by the story, it is considered deviant.

I'm not saying that it's "better" (I used to co-facilitate sexual abuse support groups so it's also a very touchy issue for me), this is just what I was taught.

 

[psychmama]

My short answers to your questions 🙂:


Murder and rape are understandable from the perspective of a biological imperative--this doesn't make the victims any less dead or devastated and doesn't make the crimes any less real.

Very true. That's why there are statutory rape laws.

 

[JockNerd]

I think I'm especially sensitive to this issue because I have counseled clients who suffered sexual abuse in early adolescence. Call it what you want, it's very destructive and takes years to recover from (if ever). Of course, I understand that we're having more of a theoretical debate here, which is fine. I just wanted to hear your rationale for the distinction. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm not sure if or why you would think I think anything different. I certainly didn't indicate that in my post. But, I see a sharp distinction between being attracted to a sexually mature 15-year-old cheerleader and being attracted to a toddler. I never said ANYTHING about it being less harmful.

MJ was found not guilty. He's weird. I think anyone who was famous for nearly his entire life, and beaten and abused in childhood, would be weird. Weirdness is not a crime. I think there's also some pretty good indications that some of the families of the kids involved were VERY interested in financial settlements, and much less interested in protecting other kids or bringing an offender to justice.

 

[cara susanna]

I agree, JockNerd.

 

[KillerDiller]

So does this all mean MJ (assuming he was in fact attracted to 12-14 y.o. males) is not as deviant as a person who's attracted to younger boys? Legally he's just as culpable assuming sexual involvement before age of consent.

Well, I think that if we define deviance in the strict sense of the term--deviating from the norm--then the answer to this question is yes. I don't have the sources, but it seems evident to me that there are more people who are attracted to young teenagers than there are people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

And, again, this is not to say that acting on these attractions is somehow better or less reprehensible.

 

[erg923]

Well, I think that if we define deviance in the strict sense of the term--deviating from the norm--then the answer to this question is yes. I don't have the sources, but it seems evident to me that there are more people who are attracted to young teenagers than there are people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

And, again, this is not to say that acting on these attractions is somehow better or less reprehensible.

My following statements are examining theese issues from a purely scientific and theoretical standpoint and in no way condones any illegal activities. It also in no way reflects my attitude towards sexual predators, as I am a big beliver in individual responsibility, and hold little mercy for individual who choose to satify their own needs at the expense of someone else's well being.

My wife and I can both appreciate the female form. Lets face it, its beautiful. We live in Cali and when we go the beach, both our heads turn left and right. I guarantee that not all the girls that are making us take a second look are over 18. I do not feel guilty about this and do not feel im a creepy pedophile either. And again, the reason most certainly lies in the features and forms that lend themselves to physical attraction (ie., breast development, widening of the hips, etc). Keep in mind that the notion of being sexually attracted towards someone who is below 18 as pathological has only been around for a century or so. From an evolutionary perspective, I don't think this is long enough for the natural physiology of sexual attraction that is wired in our brians to have faded out. Now of course we ALL recognize that it is not appopriate to act on any of these attrractions. In fact, I would argue that perhaps the majority of 18-19 years old girls are not emotionally mature enough to deal with all the issues that surround sex. I mean, really, do you guys no any 18 year olds with truely healthy (emotionally) sex lives? However, society designates that this is when people are abke to make "adult decisions." Ther are some very good reasosns to assume this, but in my mind, there is very little empirical support for it.

Now, having a physical/sexual attraction to girls who are not developed is very different in my opnion. Primarily because they do have the typical physical markers of sexual maturity. To me, this suggests the brain has developed an attraction to features and ideas that are way beyond the evolutionary norm. To me, this is what represents true pathology.

 

[Wildcat06]

From what I learned about sex offender assessment, the penile plethysmograph (sp?) shows both pictures of teenagers and stories about them. If the offender is aroused by the picture, it's not considered deviant but if he's aroused by the story, it is considered deviant.

I'm not terribly familiar with plethysmographs (aside from what I learned from Mike Bailey 🙂).

But I have done many a sex offender evaluation using the Abel which shows subjects pictures of clothed (anywhere from a bathing suit to shirt and slacks) individuals of various ages. It then times how long they look at the pictures as evidence of sexual interest. On the Abel, interest in young or very young children is considered deviant while interest in adolescents is considered normal.

 

[nononora]

To me, this suggests the brain has developed an attraction to features and ideas that are way beyond the evolutionary norm. To me, this is what represents true pathology.

But you could make the same argument for homosexuality.

 

[JockNerd]

I always notice that an odd kind of sexism focused on the denial of women's sexuality frequently creeps into topics like this. Witness:

In fact, I would argue that perhaps the majority of 18-19 years old girls are not emotionally mature enough to deal with all the issues that surround sex.

I can never make sense of statements like this. They seem to indicate that it would be fine to be attracted to an emotionally mature 15 year old, which I'm sure isn't waht Erg was trying to convey (but, a deeper level of thought about your stance on the topic might be in order).

But you could make the same argument for homosexuality.

Beg to differ. Read Biological Exuberance, among the many, many, many book and articles on this topic.

I think this aspect of the debate is a good reminder that most of our psychopathologies are socially constructed (see the Trans part in the DSM thread for more on that...)

 

[Wildcat06]

I always notice that an odd kind of sexism focused on the denial of women's sexuality frequently creeps into topics like this.

I agree. And let's also not forget that males can be the victims and females the perps. I think we've narrowed in on a very specific population here. And 15 year old males are no more (and in fact, in terms of brain development, much less) mature.

EDIT: The same goes from 18 & 19 year old males also.

 

[erg923]

I always notice that an odd kind of sexism focused on the denial of women's sexuality frequently creeps into topics like this. Witness:



I can never make sense of statements like this. They seem to indicate that it would be fine to be attracted to an emotionally mature 15 year old, which I'm sure isn't waht Erg was trying to convey (but, a deeper level of thought about your stance on the topic might be in order).

Im not sure how this statment "denies" a woman's sexuality. Im not really even sure what that means, but Im not denying a young womans sexuality at all. If anything, I was recognizing that it exists. Second, I meant 18 and 19 old in general, not just women. I agree that young men of that age are generally not either. That doesnt mean I think that having sex at that age is "wrong" or that im "denying" it to anyone. I was just saying that I do indeed think that sex at that age elicits issues and emotions that we are not always equiped to deal with optimally. Life expereince teaches us a great deal about how to deal with issues of sex, intimacy, and relationships that most of us dont yet have when we are 18. Further, Im not sure why that statment would infer that its ok to be attracted to an emotionally mature 15 year old. How did you get that from what i said?

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think erg was saying that he thinks the 18-y/o adult/child cut-off is kind of abitrary.

 

[Wildcat06]

Second, I meant 18 and 19 old in general, not jsut women. I agree, that men are generally not either.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. It was just a little confusing since your post was focused on girls. But I agree with the rest of your statements.

 

[JockNerd]

Second, I meant 18 and 19 old in general, not just women. I agree that young men of that age are generally not either.

..then I'm sure you understand my misunderstanding, given that you wrote something different. ;-)

How this expression usually works out, and what I thought your post resembled, was essentially what Wildcat was driving at when people say things like "women can't be pedophiles because young boys would be totally into that." That sort of thing denies women's sexuality when it asserts that only and all women are victims because they couldn't possibly want to have sex, but all men are incapable of being victims because they must want to have sex.

There's also fun heterosexism in there too.

So, if you meant something different, comment retracted, but I'm sure you can see why I would have thought you meant it as I interpreted it.

 

[erg923]

ok..its cool. I understand. The "denying sexuality" comment threw me for loop. I didnt really know what you meant by that originally.

 

[Ollie123]

I think it all boils down to the fact that age is basically a continuous variable (and development/maturity is sorta continuous, though infinitely more complicated😉 ), but we have to artificially categorize them for practical reasons. Which is fine by me, because there's really no alternative that I can think of. The legal system couldn't function otherwise.

 

[psychmama]

I think it all boils down to the fact that age is basically a continuous variable (and development/maturity is sorta continuous, though infinitely more complicated😉 ), but we have to artificially categorize them for practical reasons. Which is fine by me, because there's really no alternative that I can think of. The legal system couldn't function otherwise.

I agree Ollie. As a former lawyer I find it interesting to think about the intersection of legal and psychological issues. There's no doubt that assigning an age of consent is arbitrary -- but what choice do we have? The law must draw clear distinctions in order for individuals to know where the line is.