>>>  Laatst gewijzigd: 5 september 2019  
Ik

Woorden en Beelden

Filosofie en de waan van de dag

Start Glossen Weblog Boeken Denkwerk

Waarden en seksualiteit

Algemeen

Historische en culturele perspectieven

Seksualiteit en ideologie

Seksualiteit en jongeren

Voorkant Maletzky 'Sexual abuse and the sexual offender' Barry MALETZKY
Sexual abuse and the sexual offender - Common man or monster?
London: Karnac, 2016, 231 blzn.
ISBN-13: 978 17 8220 3896

Voorwoord bij de serie

[In het voorwoord bij de serie de bekende suggestieve terminologie:]

"child survivors of sexual molestation"(ix)

"offenders who committed pedophilic assaults"(ix)

"Sexual offending causes tremendous pain and often life-long suffering for its victims."(ix)

[Of zou de oorzaak gezocht moeten worden in hoe de samenleving seksuele ervaringen tussen kinderen en volwassenen kleurt? Iemand met zo'n simpele dader-slachtoffer-terminologie blinkt meestal niet uit in nuances, is mijn ervaring.]

[De benadering van Maletzky is wel kritisch in zo verre hij niet alles op één hoop gooit.]

"the high school teacher who embarks upon a sexualized romance with a fifteen-year-old cannot be lumped together in the same category as the pedophile who rapes an infant."(xiii)

[Dat lijkt me toch ook. Even afgezien van het kritiekloze gebruik van het woord 'pedophile' hier ... ]

(xix) Introduction - Dispelling the myths

[Dit stuk zit vol met waardeoordelen:]

"Is there any doubt that a sexual offense is among the most egregious of crimes? (...) Is it worse to sell drugs to children so that they become addicted, or to sexually molest them? An unanswerable question, but seemingly irrelevant for inhabitants within the hierarchy of correctional institutions. Could this be because many sexual offenders target a particularly vulnerable population? Children are often their victims, but the same might be said of those who kidnap or murder families. Still, the abuse of children must hit an especially raw nerve among prisoners as even rapists are not as often subjected to the abuse meted out to pedophiles.
In fact, it is the abuse of children that so often makes our flesh crawl and our stomachs churn. Children should be free of sexuality and, as they are usually smaller and weaker than their perpetrator, any forceful sexual activity for the gratification of the offender seems particularly repugnant. But is stealing someone’s life savings, kidnapping a child, or murdering for money less so? Yet crimes for money, revenge, adult sex, or love seem somehow more comprehensible to us as we all have cravings at times for those goals and objects. Who among us has not wished for a fortune to fall from the sky or to have sexual relations outside of marriage? (...) But few of us can understand a sexual attraction to a child, let alone excuse it as some aberration of a normal urge." [mijn nadruk] (xix-xx)

"Yet, the horrifying nature and severity of punishment of sexual crimes, particularly against children, can be justified not only by their aberrant and unnatural lust, but also by the impact they might have on their victims. No inhabitant of our modern interconnected world remains ignorant of the distress a sexual crime can cause to an abused child. Posttraumatic stress disorder is no small burden."(xx)

"Note: This text is not designed as a scientific explication, but, rather, is written for the lay person interested in the phenomenon of sexual offending. Therefore, references to the scientific literature will not be provided as they would only burden the text. However, a bibliography at the end will provide additional resources for those who wish to delve deeper into the data driving these observations." [mijn nadruk]] (xxii)

[Uiteraard wordt er geen echt antwoord gegeven op de vraag of het erger is om drugs te verkopen aan kinderen dan ze seksueel te misbruiken. Wat een suggestieve vraag is dat zo. Als de vraag zou luiden: is het erger om drugs te verkopen aan kinderen dan om een lief seksueel contact met ze te onderhouden zonder dwang of geweld? zou het antwoord niet meer zo simpel zijn. Het punt is dat er geen antwoord komt op de vraag waarom de combinatie kinderen - seksualiteit als zo veel erger wordt ervaren dan de combinatie kinderen - verdovende middelen. 'Children should be free of sexuality' schrijft hij. Hoe normatief en hoe dom, kinderen hebben hun eigen vorm van seksualiteit, dat is al zo lang bekend. 'Kinderen zouden niet de volwassen vorm van seksualiteit op gedrongen moeten krijgen' zou er moeten staan, maar helaas. En bovendien: zouden ze niet evenzeer vrij moeten zijn van verdovende middelen? Ja, maar andere misdaden kunnen we ons nog voorstellen, maar seks met kinderen niet, zegt hij dan. O, dus als we ons iets niet kunnen voorstellen is het niet goed. En natuurlijk durft niemand op zo'n bewering te reageren met: o, ik kan me dat heel goed voorstellen, ik fantaseer erover, of wat ook. De tekst is niet alleen ver van elke wetenschappelijkheid, maar zit boordevol vooroordelen en argumentatietrucjes.]

Andere hoofdstukken

"It is the task of the legal system to define sexual abuse and our system of justice has done the best it can."(4)

[Het gaat over de VS. Heeft dat wettelijk systeem daar het beter voor elkaar dan Europa? I don't think so ... De auteur geeft zelf de voorbeelden op 10-11: de 18-jarige Carmen die een 15 jarige jongen pijpt met toestemming en betrapt wordt op school:]

"The point, of course, is that Carmen did not pose a great risk of molesting or raping anyone and, although her judgment was poor in that circumstance, she did not merit an expensive and prolonged course of treatment. Yet, she was regarded by the judicial system as a sexual offender in some of the same ways that Charles and Phil were: She had to register for the remainder of her life as a sexual offender, could not be in the presence of children under the age of eighteen (until that condition was dropped after she married), could not live near a school, and could not frequent areas where young children, girls as well as boys, might congregate, such as fast food restaurants, schoolyards and parks. Were she to live in certain counties, she also would have had to put a sign up on her door or in her yard explaining that a “Sex Offender” lived in her house. Her neighbors would have been notified that such an offender lived nearby and she would be identified by name. Moreover, she would be listed, permanently, on a list of “known sex offenders” on a variety of local and national computer databases accessible to the public. Traditionally, she would be labeled a sexual offender. However, tradition based on misinformation, prejudice or ignorance is no excuse for injustice." [mijn nadruk] (11)

[Een totaal doorgeslagen systeem. En zo dom ook: als je getrouwd bent mag je dus wel in de buurt van kinderen komen? is dat een incidentele uitzondering bij haar of een regel? In het laatste geval is het belachelijk.]

[Ook opvallend op p.5: wel zeggen dat je de bijbel niet als autoriteit neemt en intussen wel naar de bijbel verwijzen alsof er niets beters bestaat. Nog een voorbeeld van Amerikaanse onzin:]

"Tyler, nineteen at the time, began dating Patricia, a devout Catholic, several months earlier; as they became increasingly attracted to each other, they began to engage in sexual fondling and Patricia had performed fellatio on Tyler but they had not had intercourse and had discussed abstaining from that particular act. However, one evening, it appeared to Tyler that Patricia would “go all the way”. She did not object to his penetrating her digitally, then to penile penetration. Once such access began, however, Patricia had second thoughts. She did not voice them at first but after about five minutes of intercourse, she urged Tyler to stop. He did not reply, continued the sexual act and, following another several minutes, he ejaculated inside her vagina. She did not complain to Tyler but confided in her best friend, who summoned police, believing an act of rape had occurred. [Werkelijk? En Patricia ging blijkbaar akkoord met die aanklacht van verkrachting?] The DA agreed, as did the judge (Tyler’s attorney felt safer with a no-jury trial). His attorney argued that it was impossible for a man to withdraw after that much apparently consenting intercourse. The judge disagreed and found Tyler guilty of rape in the third degree, although he was punished lightly (probation and treatment).
At first I thought this judgment unduly harsh, but on second thought, penile withdrawal, while most agonizingly frustrating for the male, was not impossible. “No” at any point during a sexual act truly does and should mean “no”. Therefore, Tyler had committed a crime. Should he have to carry the dreadful label of a sexual offender for the remainder of his days? Probably not. Will he? Under present law, unfortunately, yes. By the way, we were a bit stumped about how to carry out his mandate of therapy but eventually devised an individual plan of brief sexual impulse control training. Ten-year follow-up indicates he has committed no further deviant sexual acts and that he and Patricia are married and have twin sons." [Dus hij is getrouwd met de vrouw die hem als een verkrachter liet veroordelen. Ik denk dat hij therapie nodig heeft ... een ander soort therapie.] [mijn nadruk] (16-17)

"Most men (we believe) would have the self-control not to attempt a sexual approach to such a young girl and many, if not most, men might not even have the slightest urge to do so—we simply do not know. But a combination of low self-control, aggression, and high sexual drive (along with drugs or alcohol in some cases) could create just the right (wrong) conditions for such an approach."(29)

[Hij stelt dingen die hij 'gelooft' en zegt daarna dat we niet weten hoe het met die dingen zit. Erg betrouwbaar verhaal, dan.]

"Genetics is a poor excuse, as most pedophiles do not have pedophilia in their families. The wellsprings of this basic attraction to girls and boys is beyond a simple explanation now but surely stems from some combination of central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction, perhaps occurring around the ages of sexual object formation in the brain, around 7–12 years of age, combined with low sexual impulse control, also probably a CNS problem—this one perhaps inherited—along with the possibility of drug and alcohol abuse further lowering sexual inhibitions."(30)

[Het is niet genetisch, maar wel een neurologische dysfunctie? Wat een onzin.]

"Recent work, however, offers some hope that an inherited propensity for poor impulse control can be attenuated. The oft-studied marshmallow test puts children, usually below the age of five, in a dilemma: One marshmallow now or, if you wait five or ten minutes, two later. This simple test of will power does a surprisingly admirable job of predicting these young subjects’ abilities later in life, such as SAT scores in their teens, the stability of relationships as adults, and even lower BMI indices. The good news is that the ability to resist instant gratification can be enhanced through positive reinforcement. Future experiments will be needed to see if such early childhood training can enhance one’s skill in controlling impulses and whether this has anything to do with reducing a tendency toward criminal behavior in general or sexual offending in particular." [mijn nadruk] (34)

[Dus toch genetisch? En arme sociale milieus hebben die genetische neigingen vaker? Tjonge jonge. Verderop komen er allerlei evolutionaire 'feiten' die duidelijk moeten maken waarom mannen een agressiever soort seksualiteit hebben dan vrouwen. En mannen hebben daardoor een kleinere 'impulse control' zo zou uit de marshmallow-tests blijken. ]

"What was lacking in his view [van de voorzitter van de NAMBLA, de National Man–Boy Love Association in de VS - GdG] was the concept that, even if a child seems willing to consent, that child may well, and often does, suffer the consequences of abuse later in life. Often, it is the survivor who reaches adult years who experiences the worst symptoms of childhood abuse; as a child, those symptoms may well be hidden."(37)

[En hoe zou nu toch komen, hè? Dit zit erg dicht bij stemmingmakerij. Wat verder volgt zijn diagnostische technieken om vast te stellen of iemand een 'offender' is en de neiging heeft om dat steeds weer opnieuw te zijn. Daarna gaat het over therapeutische technieken waarbij het normaal gevonden wordt dat 'offenders' de volgende beperkingen krijgen opgelegd:]

"Such restrictions, which might emanate first from the PO but also may be additionally superimposed by the clinician, can include, for example, for a pedophile, those listed below.
>> No contact with children under the age of eighteen, whether male or female (there is a slight risk that an offender against a child of one gender may also be attracted to a child of the other gender), and whether supervised or unsupervised. The reason at first for the restriction against supervised visitation is not because of a fear the offender might somehow sneak away and hide sexual activity with a child, but that even supervised contact could lead to further deviant fantasy formation. Should sufficient progress be made in treatment, supervised visitation would be a next step.
>> No contact with the victim, supervised or unsupervised. This might seem redundant but, by the time of release, the victim could be over the age of eighteen.
>> No frequenting of places where children might congregate, such as parks, schoolyards, or playgrounds.
>> Attendance at every supervisory and treatment session.
>> Mandatory random unannounced drug and alcohol testing.
>> No access to the Internet.
>> No viewing of television programs featuring children.
>> Follow through on all treatment requirements (see below), including signing a safety plan and a treatment contract.
>> No commission of any non-sexual criminal activity.
>> No visits to adult-themed stores or to pornography movie theaters.
>> No use of public restrooms.
>> Submission to plethysmograph and viewing time tests as directed by the therapist.
>> In the most menacing of cases, electronic monitoring via a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet."(78)

[O, geen castratie, chemisch of anderszins? Typisch puriteinse angst voor alles wat met seksualiteit te maken heeft. Ik kan me voorstellen dat iemand zo opstandig wordt van die benadering dat welke therapie dan ook geen enkele zin heeft. Nou, ik geloof het verder wel. Dit boek is zo bevooroordeeld en onbetrouwbaar als wat. Wat ik tot nu toe las wekt geen enkel vertrouwen.]

Start  ||   Glossen  ||   Weblog  ||   Boeken  ||   Denkwerk