You are here:   Academia > Britain's Apologists For Child Abuse
 
Part of the problem, it would appear, is the stark division in many people’s minds between what they understand as “paedophilia” and child sexual abuse committed by highly functioning, respectable family members or guardians. Men who sexually abuse children in the home are not usually labelled “paedophiles”: this word is reserved for people like Sidney Cooke, currently serving a life sentence for multiple convicitons of sex abuse against boys — evil-looking men who prey upon children previously unknown to them. And yet far more children are abused by someone they know.

Some experts, who try to unravel the phenomenon of paedophilia, in particular sexual libertarians, give the impression that being “attracted” to children is a sexual orientation rather than a choice to harm them. They suggest that these people are not “ordinary men” but part of a weird sub-group; that there is a medical explanation, rather than a social one, for their behaviour. That they are different from fathers or stepfathers, who abuse children in the home; or that they are inevitably victims of abuse themselves.

The dangerous implications of a resurgence of the “paedophile” label was evident in an article in the Guardian on January 17, 1996. It was a small piece noting a problem delaying the publication of the first British commentary on Catholic canon law due to a mistake in relation to papal infallibility. Within this document are two pages on how to respond to priests who “are paedophiles”. The Church’s position is that paedophiles have diminished responsibility because their sexual urges are “in effect beyond their control”.

In 2013, at the height of the revelations concerning Savile and other well-known men exposed as child abusers, Guardian feature writer Jon Henley wrote an article headlined “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light.” The standfirst read: “The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia — and even how much harm it causes.” The article caused some intense anger, but also drew support from others, including — unsurprisingly — some self-identified paedophiles, including O’Carroll.

In the article, Henley went to great pains to make a distinction between a medical diagnosis of paedophilia, and the act of child sexual abuse. “But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them.

“In fact, ‘true’ paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20 per cent of sexual abusers,” he continued. “Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that ‘the majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational’.”

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Kim
August 30th, 2015
11:08 PM
Thank you so much Julie for writing this article. It is so important that someone investigates the nuances and not just sees things in black and white. Your article seems to have already upset someone in the skeptic / debunker / anomalistic brigade. Just remember that whenever they accuse you of being "unscientific" according to their narrow positivist def then it means you are on to something.

James Murray
August 29th, 2015
9:08 PM
The writer loses any credibility when she quotes Judith Jones as a sympathetic viewpoint. Jones and her partner in crime Beatrix Campbell were at the forefront of the sickening false child abuse accusations of the 80's and early 90's: Cleveland, Orkney, Nottingham.

dwpandme
August 28th, 2015
2:08 AM
I don't think I've ever read such a long article that achieves so little. I have to wonder what could possibly have motivated you to compose such a piece when you clearly have neither scientific evidence nor coherently reasoned argument at your disposal. I am not being facetious when I say that after reading the entire article I was left with no clear understanding of the standpoint you are taking on this issue and I don't believe that to be a reflection of my poor comprehension skills. Throughout the article you paraphrase and quote the opinions of academics and experts whose views you clearly don't share. This is good, you're setting up an argument that you wish to criticize, the next step is to reveal the weaknesses and bring to light the inconsistencies that invalidate that argument; however, you don't seem to think that this step is necessary. Instead you imagine that it is enough to suggest that because the implications of the conclusions which evidence and scientific inquiry compel us to draw are problematic and cause you to experience cognitive dissonance, this is itself enough for you to dismissively dispense with all such nonsense without further thought. Unfortunately, by your refusing to apply any faculty of intellect to seriously take on the issues that you raise, you deny me the opportunity to engage in constructive discourse regarding a matter which is of great importance and universal concern.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.