SEX OFFENDERS: HETEROSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN

The sex offenders treated here are adult males convicted of sexual contact, without the use of force or threat, with female children under the age of twelve, who were not their daughters. The majority of these children were prepubescent; they had not developed pubic hair, breast enlargement, and other adult sexual characteristics that are sexually attractive to ordinary men. The heterosexual offender vs. children thereby differs from other men in seeking or at least accepting as a sexual partner a female who lacks the physical attributes that are considered sexually attractive in our society. The term “pedophiles” has often been attached to the offenders vs. children who many times would prefer, as we shall later demonstrate, an adult sexual partner.

In formulating this category of sex offenders we encountered the problem of eliminating from it the cases that involved the use of physical force or direct threat. Force ranges from unmitigated violence to, let us say, holding a child by the wrist; threat runs the gamut from specific verbal threat or brandishing a weapon to a subtle implication. In any relationship between a child and an adult there is always in the background an element of duress; the inevitable disparity in strength and social status is an omnipresent factor. A man, even though a stranger, is in an authoritarian superior position. While it was manifestly impossible to cope with these vaguer (but nonetheless effective) forms of force and threat, we were able to exclude from heterosexual offenders vs. children anyone who told us of using force or threat or whose official record mentioned its use.

This does not mean that the children involved were necessarily eager and cooperative; it does, however, mean that the man did not have to resort to physical violence or specific threat in order to achieve the sexual relationship.

The horror with which our society views the adult who has sexual contact with young children is lessened when one examines the behavior of other mammals. Sexual activity between adult and immature animals is common and appears to be biologically normal; however, it reflects no preference for the immature as such.

Among some preliterate societies a sexual relationship between an adult and a child evokes only a mildly negative reaction. The relation ship may be considered somewhat ludicrous or it may be considered evidence that the adult is too socially inept or unattractive to obtain an adult partner. Fear of ridicule and loss of prestige operate even in sexually permissive cultures to restrict sexual activity between children and adults. In a small number of societies infants or occasionally children may be masturbated by adults (usually relatives) in order to soothe them, but there is no evidence that the adult receives any sexual gratification. In some cases such masturbation seems to be done as a casual jest or as an amusing display of the child’s sexual potential.

The universal tendency to express affection and love through physical contact naturally comes into conflict with taboos concerning incest, homosexuality, and age disparities. In our culture the dilemma is solved by assuming that physical contact is not sexually motivated in certain cases. For example, we see a sexual element when an unrelated male and female embrace, but when a mother and adult son embrace we automatically reject the idea of there being any sexuality involved. In the same way a certain amount of physical contact, which would be construed as sexual under other circumstances, is socially permitted between children and adults. If the child and adult are related, it is not only permitted but expected.

Humans, however, are not psychologically and physically so constituted that a particular act can always be invested with purely sexual or asexual overtones as the social situation may demand. Our physiology and our subconscious recognize and react to warmth, body contact, and other stimulation; they do not make the fine social differentiation between, say, one’s wife and one’s sister-in-law. Thus a grandfather bouncing his grandchild on his lap may be aghast to discover he is developing an erection; a brother embracing his sister upon his return from a long absence may guiltily recognize a sexual response in himself.

It is easy to envision how a person under stress and starved for affection might find in the uninhibited responses of a child a strong sexual stimulation. If his culturally constructed mental barriers against such behavior are, in addition, weakened by intoxication, senility, or emotional upset, it is not hard to see how an initially asexual relationship can readily become sexual. The actual sexual behavior may amount to little and be hastily ended, but the act is irredeemable-Uncle George or the nice young roomer upstairs or the old man who lives down the street or whoever he may be is now a sex offender both legally and in the eyes of his fellow men. On the other hand, of course, not all offenders vs. children are innocent victims of the conflict between biology and society; the nice young roomer may have had his eye on his landlady’s daughter for months.

*23\161\2*

Share and Enjoy: