What's to Blame for Josh Duggar? Institutionalism, not Christianity

What we know: Josh Duggar’s admission is great fodder against Duggar Family Values, which include anti-gay stances as well as assertions that “non-traditional” values endanger children.What we don’t know: What created the awful urges in Josh to begin with. Those opposed to what this powerful family both believes and attempts to influence politically are triumphantly declaring things like home-schooling and hyper-religiosity to be petri dishes for the kind of sexual deviance Josh displayed as a teenager.They’re probably wrong.As deliciously tempting as it is for some on my side of the political spectrum to demonize the Duggars and their way of life as some sort of catalyst for awful behavior, there's little psychological evidence to support that. In fact, Josh’s deviance was most likely not (in and of itself) the product of home schooling or any other religious dogma or tradition the Duggars took part in. Sexual deviance, as far we know at this point, does not generate that way. More likely, Josh was (or is) deviant for reasons we don't understand, but that are probably innate (“nature”) and/or the product of his environment (“nurture”), but in a different way than we normally observe.I am no soothsayer, but what I’ve come to understand after a career of dealing with this pathology is that it is simply everywhere. The conservative numbers (1 in 3 girls and about 1 in 6 boys) remain replicable, reliable and constant. Sexual abuse happens everywhere: Among the religious and non-religious. Among the rich, the poor, the city dweller, the farmer, etc., etc., etc. The sexual abuse of children, whether by teenagers like Josh Duggar or by more mature adults, happens continuously and universally.Therefore, the question better asked is not “what made this happen?” but “what allowed it to flourish and continue in that particular situation?” In the case of the world of “19 and Counting,” we should look, as always, to an institution.In Josh Duggar’s world, the institution of dogmatic, insular Christianity provided him two things: First, It made it easier for him not only to offend, but to get away with offending. Second, it did so in a manner that leaves him today free of legal consequences, still married, and still employable. Here's how:Whatever Josh was (or is), he grew up in a male-dominated world where “the father is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the Church.” Firstly, his was an environment that exalted a Christian-based order that, among other things, clamped down on any opposition or suggestion of "rebellion." This very likely discouraged his victims from reporting his actions to other family members or anyone who might have made a difference. Rebellion, after all, can be perceived as anything that upsets the proverbial apple cart. This was a fact probably not lost on Josh himself as he chose his victims.Secondly, this same Christian-based worldview necessitated, as it does with any religiously based orthodoxy, an “in-house” solution to conflict or deviant behavior within the environment. Why? Because it reinforces the idea that the religion itself has within it the answer to every problem- there is never a need to consult outside sources which are doubtlessly less pure and enlightened.But even more dangerous is the insistence on handling matters of “conflict” within the religious environment so that the outside world will not perceive flaws or weaknesses within its structure. The Duggars likely perceive themselves, as many do in their circumstances, as holdouts against a world moving in a direction they neither trust nor respect. The last thing they want that outside world to perceive is a weakness within their structure.It's important to understand how these things explain (but do not excuse) the Duggar’s response to a heartbreaking and haunting problem, and why offenders like Josh Duggar can flourish in environments otherwise mortally opposed to behavior like his. But it’s equally important to understand what they don’t explain.They don’t explain Josh’s deviance to begin with. That’s a question we dare not breezily discard with the easy answer of demonizing religion. Or culture. Or anything else. Because as far as we know, deviance poisons all of these equally.

An Inconvenient Truth About Pedophilia: It's a Curse, Not a Choice

A friend sent me this link to a New York Times op-ed on pedophilia, the technical term for the DSM-V, paraphilic mental health diagnosis that describes a person (usually a male), sexually interested only in pre-pubescent children.Apparently, the DSM itself (the "bible" of mental health professionals) will not describe pedophilia as a sexual orientation, but rather a paraphilic disorder. This is basically a sexual predilection detrimental to the object of the interest, and which causes the sufferer significant distress or difficulty dealing with it. Since pedophiles are solely, sexually focused on prepubescent children, any manifestation of the disorder will be- in essence- harmful and unacceptable. Rightfully, we punish such manifestations, including consumption of child pornography as well as "hands-on" offending.Regardless, I know of no reputable mental health expert who would call pedophilia a "choice." When it comes to the persistent, chronic sexual attraction to prepubescent children, what we're dealing with is more of a burden.Or more bluntly, a curse.What's chosen is behavior.  Sexual behavior involving prepubescent children should remain 1) anathema to what is societally acceptable, and 2) severely punished. I've spent a career seeking to do these things.But the author of the op-ed makes valid points when she discusses the need to understand pedophilia instead of just aiming vitriol and anger toward those saddled with this miserable circumstance. There are, as she notes, people with pedophilia who do not act out in response to deep-seated urges. They understand the concrete wrongness of sexually acting out against children, so they painfully but dutifully deny themselves a sexual life.In my opinion, with a career of seeking to protect children from child molesters behind me, I believe these successfully restrained people should be commended for this, particularly when their concern is more for the children they might harm as it is for the legal or societal consequences they might face. Certainly, they should not be further marginalized, ostracized, or hated. But regardless of how balanced any appeal to common sense or baseline compassion might be, hatred and viciousness are usually what pedophiles encounter.And so they remain in the shadows, untreated and more deeply misunderstood.We still have almost no idea what causes pedophilia; correlations between childhood experiences (abusive or non-abusive) have been at best inconclusive. If it's genetic, we've yet to discover a traceable etiology. We know that the vast majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse do not turn around themselves and abuse later in life or "become" pedophiles. Rather, it seems more ingrained, but we don't know why or how.  We also know that, while most confirmed abusers will claim past sexual abuse, even the threat of a polygraph exam during treatment will bring those claims far down.So we're dealing with a very dangerous mystery. But largely as a society, we're interested in nothing but punishing pedophiles, regardless of their actual status as offenders. If they have this desire, too many of us seem to believe that they're worthy of the worst we can legally (or otherwise) dish out to them.The comments to Dr. Margo Kaplan's piece in the NYT are enlightening in this regard. While some applaud her for her courage in being a voice of reason, many more seem to fall into a couple of categories that, while understandable to some degree, are irrelevant. First, there are commenters who simply make legally and psychologically incorrect assertions, and lump pedophiles into the far larger subset of child molesters, most of whom are not pedophiles. Second, there are woefully unfocused comments that address the harm done to the victims of pedophiles (or people they assume are pedophiles) with no further thought.Focusing on victims and prevention of harm is more than understandable; it's completely appropriate and it needs to continue to be our highest priority. But we must also understand what drives offending- particularly when the drive is so despised that passion chokes that understanding.Again- most predatory, sexual offenders are not pedophiles. The word is grossly overused and misused. Regardless, there are harmful pedophiles in our midst. We need to stop them, but in order to do so, we need to understand them.Blind hatred won't help. Blind hatred never helps anything.   

Honored Beyond Words: Being a Part of "Lived Through This"

It has to have been 8 years or more since I first heard of the Voices and Faces Project, although it seems like much longer. Its mission is so beautifully simple that it tends to transcend its also beautifully simple name: Voices and Faces.But that’s the point.The best prosecutors, investigators and advocates I ever worked with in this business knew that the word “case,” and the dozens of other words we use to categorize, triage, sanitize and process human misery as a result of crime, was a reprehensible substitute for the person we came to know at the center of it.Yes, it was a case, and it had to be dealt with as such. But the thing that haunted us wasn’t the case. It was the she or he, the unique, mysterious, and sometimes broken, sometimes remarkably unbowed, person before us. To the extent we were responsible to her or him- at least for what we could control in the almost comically blunt and fractured, imperfect system we worked in- we struggled to keep that person’s face foremost in our minds. We struggled to hear her or his voice as we strategized, made decisions, and dealt out “justice” as we’d been conditioned to accept and define it.But even that voice- the one we heard- was truncated. I was good at what I did, and I listened well. But what I needed to hear professionally, and what I could spare the time and emotional energy for, was always far less than what could have been fully related to me. When I parted ways with a survivor, whether she was 5 or 75, I often wondered what I’d missed, and was missing then and forever. But it wasn't something I could dwell on. There were more "cases" coming in. Pretty much every day.The pinnacle of what I did wasn’t winning those cases (and yes, I accept how self-serving that sounds, having lost my share). Regardless, the pinnacle was responding to the voices and acknowledging the faces in a way that gave them- and not us- the measure of dignity and recognition they deserved.That is the day to day challenge that simply must be met in the Anglo-American criminal justice response to sexual violence, or all else is lost, and our critics are right to say we serve no one but ourselves.But even at our best, we could only see so much, and absorb so much. There was- and always will be- an ocean of human experience going woefully unnoticed by those of us tasked with responding professionally to the harm done. We’re simply not equipped to know it all, whether because it’s not legally relevant, not immediately discernible, or not emotionally digestible given the spectrum we work on.And the saddest fact, of course, is that the incalculable amount of suffering, resilience, inspiration and courage that results from sexual violence in our world could be at any time multiplied exponentially from what I missed, and that all of us in the entire system miss. This is because we only see what enters the system we created in the first place. The vast, vast majority of sexual violence that occurs the world over, day in and day out, is never revealed to any sort of system of authority or adjudication. It simply goes unmet, unaided, unanswered. Unheard.Voices and Faces changes that, and with no more than the courage of the survivors and the ability to memorialize their accounts. Of course, the project stands apart from the criminal justice response and well it should. I simply came across it as a practitioner with no other perspective.Except for one. I am a victim, myself of child sexual abuse, a fact known now to most who know me in any capacity, but unknown to most during my tenure as a special victims prosecutor. A few years ago, the author of “Lived Through This,” herself a survivor of a brutal home invasion rape and a dear friend, approached me about being a part of the compilation she envisioned. She knew my story. She wanted to tell it for me. The proudest thing I’ve ever done is to allow her to do so.Thank you, Anne, for doing it so very beautifully.

The Disposability of Boys: Great Read from Goodmen Project

"If you are one of the millions of people in this world who vocalize or otherwise spread your belief that being gay is “bad” or “sinful” you are directly and actively contributing to the trauma of boys who have been sexually exploited."Cameron Conaway, "The Disposability of Boys" The Goodmen Project, February 17, 2014 

Worth Knowing in the Dylan Farrow Case: The Actual Risk of Suggestibility With Children

Tom Lyon, A law professor at the University of Southern California, has a remarkably valuable dual background when it comes to legal child protection: He's both an attorney and a psychologist. Among the most influential contributions he's made is this article, plainly titled "Let's Not Exaggerate the Suggestibility of Children."In a child sexual abuse case, suggesting the complainant was either coached to adopt fantasy as reality, or simply did so out of confusion between the two, is a popular defense tactic. It's particularly attractive because it doesn't involve judging the victim or accusing her of lying.  She can be viewed as, in a sense, as much a victim as the state is claiming, but in an entirely different way.This has, not surprisingly, been suggested over and over again regarding the allegations made by Dylan Farrow, adopted daughter of Woody Allen. Countless observers, and indeed Allen himself, have suggested that Dylan is not a devious liar, but instead a sad pawn, indoctrinated to believe a false memory in the context of a vicious divorce and custody battle.For this reason, it's important to understand what respected research has to say on the subject of- in fact- how suggestible children are. I'd encourage you to read the article itself if you're interested; it's written for a general audience and not dense or jargon-filled. But in a nutshell, here's what the research reveals:1. Very young children (3 and 4, which is about as young as a child can be forensically interviewed except in exceptional circumstances) can be led to adopt false memories or incorrect versions of events. But this only occurs after extreme efforts such as a very long passage of time between the actual event and the interviews, and repeated interviews over time with constant introduction of false memories. And even with these efforts, a majority of these same, very young children will maintain the actual version of events and resist efforts to conflate fantasy and reality.2. The danger of children conflating fantasy and reality drops off sharply at around 5 or 6 years of age.3. By the age of 10, children meeting normal developmental milestones are no more susceptible to adopting false memories than adults.Even more interesting: The first research done on children and susceptibility (often called the "first wave") was done by respected psychologists, but also child protection advocates and researchers who believed children were not nearly as susceptible as popular culture largely accepted. The so-called "second wave" research was conducted by equally respected psychologists who thought the first-wave researchers were being too rosy in their assessments and set out to demonstrate that children can be made to adopt incorrect or even wholly false versions of events if efforts are strong enough. They succeeded, but generally with extremely young children and through efforts that are virtually unheard of in child abuse cases. The bottom line is that yes, mostly toddler-aged children can be led to adopt false memories with repeated, methodical, and highly suggestive attempts to confuse them after a considerable amount of time has passed between the event and the repeated interviews. But even with these tactics, a majority of children will still maintain a a correct version of events.Dylan Farrow was seven when she allegedly endured what she clearly describes now, at 28, as sexual abuse at the hands of Woody Allen. Describing her as a liar and a willful tool of her embittered mother even after 21 years is arguable, as it always will be. Anyone can lie, and some can lie very convincingly.But claiming that she was simply, easily and permanently led to create a false memory- at the level of detail she now relates- is a claim utterly unsupported by the very best research on the subject, about half of it conducted by skeptical researchers suspicious of children's abilities.Those who believe Allen is innocent may be right; I will never know and neither will they. But neither they nor Allen himself have a right to claim that Dylan was easily confused and now sadly tied to that confusion. To believe Allen is innocent is, in all likelihood, to reject the detailed account Dylan has given, and to reject her as a liar; the worst kind.Period.  

Serial Child Predator Jonathan Adleta: Portrait of a Common Occurance

In addition to the horror accompanying the details, it might seem unrealistic that a predator like Jonathan Adleta could find more than one woman willing to provide him a child to rape. And yet Adleta managed to find at least two that authorities know of. This is far more common, sadly, than many realize. Not only are men like Adleta driven to abuse again and again, they are also demonically skilled in attracting people who will give them access to victims again and again.

Technology in the War Against Child Exploitation

Keeping pace with predators, one dossier at a time. Good on this Dutch organization; let the world follow suit.

Hidden Webcam Captures A Common Occurrence: Child Sexual Abuse

A 14 year-old girl in France was, thankfully, able to demonstrate the reality of a horror that her account of would likely have been insufficient to bring charges. A hidden web cam captured her father sexually abusing her.  The man's attorney claims the abuse occurred- and only occurred- during a period of unemployment and the pressure of a divorce.Doubtful. More than likely this has occurred 1) about as long as the man's sexual interest in his daughter has been established, and 2) with no regard to any other stressors in his life.This is how predatory behavior works. Thank God a camera was able to make the existence of it undeniable.

An Intolerable Glimmer and an Intolerable Focus on Controlling Women: Why I Still Fight Victim-Centered Rape Prevention

The “glimmer” is one of doubt. It’s the doubt that’s created when we analyze a rape perpetrated on a victim who was drunk, dressed seductively, or engaged in whatever behavior we have adjudged unwise and foolish. It’s a glimmer that allows for the blaming- ever so slightly, but still substantively- of the victim. It’s a glimmer that allows for the exoneration- ever so slightly, but still substantively- of the offender.That’s what victim-centered rape prevention does. Regardless of how well-intentioned. Regardless of how coldly logical. Regardless of the reservoir of love and benevolence that lies behind it. Regardless. It still serves to create the glimmer. And the glimmer is too much.See, we can claim we’re not blaming victims all we want when we advise seemingly obvious and demonstrably effective means of prevention. It does not matter; the effect still serves to blame victims and protect offenders. Why? Because sexual violence is a crime different from any other.Read that again. Rape is categorically, undeniably in a class by itself. When one person attacks another sexually, the crime is analyzed differently than any other. Since criticizing Emily Yoffe’s State pieces earlier this week (her pieces are here and here) , I have received dozens of messages from people who construct analogies to other crimes to describe why her key advice (control your drinking) is simply sound advice and not victim blaming, regardless of how unfair it might seem. Others shake their heads and tell me I can wish for a kinder, fairer world all I want, but they’ll be damned if they won’t tell their daughters and sons exactly “what not to do” in order to protect them.That’s understandable. But here is an undeniable truth: Leave aside my belief that all that advice, even if it works in many situations, also potentially opens up the hearers to other vectors of attack. For those who would still prefer to create rules and encourage loved ones to follow them in order to best play the odds, I will challenge them on at least one aspect of their thinking: They cannot avoid a charge of victim-blaming by claiming they would give similar advice to anyone in order to avoid, say, robbery (by walking on well-lit streets), or car theft (by locking doors).Rape isn't like robbery, car theft, or even murder. Sex, and how we view it, doesn't allow for that.The nature of sexuality in our culture (and most others) does not allow for it to be analogized to any other crime. The nuances and complexities of sexual interaction, seduction, flirtation, gender roles, the intensely private and culturally shame-based nature of the whole subject, the relation of the sexual organs to the excretory ones, the continued prizing of “purity,” etc, etc, etc, all combine to make sexual crime one that is always analyzed differently from any other.So the danger of tipping the scales even a tiny bit and judging victim choices, thus marginally exonerating offenders, is magnified with sexual crime.Another hard truth: The further we dig into the nature of sexual crime, the further we must dig into the nature of sex itself. And that means taking an honest look at gender roles, expectations, and deep-seated fears and obsessions that have shaped how society judges, treats, confines, punishes and subjugates women.Read that again also, if you would. Far too much of the debate concerning how women can and should protect themselves from men is polluted with the continuing and still deeply unresolved obsession that men (and some women as well) still have with women as sexual beings. Our major religions, our societal structures, our laws, customs and mores. How many are hyper-focused on controlling female sexuality? When we can answer that question honestly and accurately, we'll have uncovered much of what is wrong with how we seek to prevent rape.That, in a nutshell, is why I find even the best intentioned, victim-centered prevention strategists to be ultimately wrong-headed. Try as they might, they are still tipping the scales. They are still creating doubt. As a prosecutor, that’s a thing I was trained very carefully to avoid when justice is on the line.

Maryville: Less Likely A Cover-up, More Likely a Prosecutor Not Up to the Challenge

A travesty of justice likely took place in 2012 in Maryville, Missouri regarding the rape of a 14 year-old girl by a high school senior. Because the defendant comes from a political family with ties to the local DA, charges of a conspiracy to scuttle charges have captured media attention as much as any aspect of the crime. While salacious and disturbing, I’m willing to bet they aren’t true.That’s not to say I don’t think the defendant, now a college student who was apparently still tweeting misogynistic messages until fairly recently, didn’t benefit from who he was and where he came from. The victim and her family were also likely disadvantaged by being “outsiders” from another community. But at this point, my guess is the reality is more mundane. I don’t think the case was derailed by a coordinated effort involving the DA and law enforcement to protect Matthew Barnett because of his ties to a former legislator and sitting Congressman.Far more likely, Robert Rice, the DA responsible for dropping first felony and then misdemeanor charges, simply felt unprepared and discouraged from taking them to trial. If so, he’s far from alone in not knowing how to make the most of good police work and common sense in a sexual abuse case involving alcohol and adolescent behavior.I’m careful here, as I am in every case I comment on, to stress that I’ve neither considered the case the way Rice has, nor am I familiar with his jury pool and legal culture.That said, it appears he had quite a bit to go on.Victim Daisy Coleman was found by her mother, freezing on her porch and still intoxicated; Barnett and the group that drove her home abandoned her outside of her house in 22 degree weather. Her mother saw signs of physical distress to her ano-genital area, and an immediate report was made, the child taken to a hospital. Seven hours after her last drink, her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .13%. Inexperienced drinkers cannot generally reach a .13 without serious signs of intoxication, and she was likely much higher at the time she was raped. Barnett admitted to sexual intercourse on Daisy. A friend apparently video-taped the act. Other witnesses, including Daisy’s 13 year-old friend who was also raped (her 15 year-old assailant confessed as much), reported that Daisy was between crying and incoherent as they left Barnett’s home, and had to be carried from the bedroom. Evidence of drinking was collected the following day.The case looks- in any legal environment in the U.S. and I have seen most of them- eminently triable. Rice was benefitted by quick and competent police work, a confession to sexual contact, and a concerned mother rightfully terrified and appalled. He dropped charges anyway. Rice says he dropped them at least in part because the Coleman’s asserted 5th Amendment privileges before a deposition, but Melinda Coleman, Daisy’s mother, insists that this was 1) only after felony charges had already been dropped and 2) a short-lived decision that she reversed the next day, agreeing to cooperate. Rice’s other reasoning involves what he calls a lack of evidence and what appeared to him as “incorrigible teenagers” drinking and having sex. If that’s truly how he feels, he has a tragic misunderstanding of the dynamics of sexual assault.First, I’m not sure what 5th Amendment privileges could have been asserted that Rice could not have proffered immunity for in order to pursue a far more serious case. Second, if Rice thinks his case was too light on evidence to bring in good faith to a jury, I can only say that myself and others- often in very challenging legal environments- have successfully taken cases forward with less.Rice has done the right thing by asking a judge to appoint a special prosecutor and re-open the case. The Colemans appear ready to cooperate, and I hope the new prosecutor views the case differently, assuming what I know is accurate and complete.Whatever happens, I believe Rice's declaration that "there wasn't any prosecuting attorney who could take that case to trial" should be publicly proven both defeatist and inaccurate. But I'm not willing at this point to believe his motivations are worse than that.

The "Re-homing" of Children Issue: A Response

Last week, I was contacted privately by an individual who was familiar with “re-homing,” also through an Internet group that included the participation of adoptive parents, some of whom were seeking to get rid of their children, and prospective “parents” looking to procure them.The person who contacted me is also an adoptive parent, appears to be a dedicated one, and largely regrets any cooperation she might have given to the “re-homing” process. But while she acknowledges the failures and the risks, she still believes there is justification for the attempts some make at abandoning children to others with power of attorney, largely from the perspective of a desperate parent with a dangerous or unmanageable adoptive child. Since she contacted me privately I will not identify her and will do my best to avoid referring to facts that might also do so. But I believe a portion of my response to her is relevant to a further examination of the issue of “re-homing” and how dangerous and utterly thoughtless it can be. So here it is:I understand your position that not enough resources exist for adoptive parents who find themselves with children who have theretofore unknown problems (or ones hidden from them) that make them not only unmanageable, but also perhaps a danger to themselves and their families. Still, I have little sympathy for adoptive parents in this situation who resolve it by dumping their children (I will not use the phrase "re-homing" without mocking quotes) with strangers and in the most dangerous of potential circumstances. Adoption is among the most profoundly sobering decisions a prospective parent can make. I'm sure you understand this better than I as you have actually taken this step and appear to be doing so with love and decency. In my view, no prospective parent should ever consider adoption without also having the resources to address every possible type of problem, foreseeable and unforeseeable. If an adopted child becomes a danger to themselves, the parents or other siblings, and must be removed from the parents' home, then the parents need to be financially prepared to seek institutional care for them, if necessary, but not while disowning them. If the best interests of the child and the family both appear to be in dissolving the adoptive relationship, then it should be attempted only through a formal, legally recognized process.  You may not know well the tactics of predators who seek out children to exploit, harm or kill, but I can assure you that a "re-homing" platform is among the most powerful and gratifying vectors to what they would consider perfect victims. I say "perfect" because a predator could scarcely imagine a better scenario than parents desperate to pawn off an unwanted child- most likely a child who is emotionally and/or physically compromised to the point where they are virtually powerless to seek help or redress from any type of abuse.  It is a fact that child predators, like all things that hunt, seek the path of least resistance and greatest security. The legal ability to abandon a vulnerable (indeed, perhaps even objectively unlikable) child to a complete stranger with a pro-forma legal document is the clearest imaginable example of those two favored circumstances. This fact alone makes "rehoming" reckless, cruel, and thoroughly abhorrent, even without considering the less sensational risks of simply unprepared and hopeful parents accepting a "re-homed" child and being even less able to properly care for her or him. Within the "re-homing" universe, what is the incentive for the abandoning parent to be honest about the true extent of the child's problems (or potential dangers to others) to begin with? The system is about dumping human beings on others, plain and simple. No one should get near it. You shouldn't have either.  In a letter you shared with me, you rhetorically asked this question to the author of the original Reuters story: "Why are parents resorting to informal networking groups to help them with adoptions that are failing? Because there are no resources.  Because of societies preconceived notions that these kids just need love, a good family, etc. and all will be well.  Tell that to the mother who finds her daughter raping a sibling with a pencil, tell that to the father who finds out his daughter is giving blow jobs to his 4 year old.  Tell that to the family who has to sleep with their bedroom doors locked because they fear for their lives." What I would tell a family in a situation like the ones you describe above is that they are still parents, not renters of human beings. They may have to lock doors. They may have to maintain distance between individuals within the house for the safety of everyone. They may have to very carefully seek out institutional care for their wounded child. They may have to seriously curtail or refine their own goals, dreams and priorities. I don't claim to know the difficulty of parenting, either my own child or an adoptive one. But I know quite well to not make such a monumental decision without being ready to accept and deal with everything that might befall me- and the rest of my family- if I choose to do so.

On Adolescent Sexual Exploitation: Room for Nuance, Not for Compromise

I should be more nuanced on the nettlesome issue of adolescent sexuality, I'm told. It's not cut and dry, and my tone is often unyielding. Perhaps.I limit myself to 700 words in this space out of respect for my readership and in acknowledgement of the hundreds of other demands on their time and opportunities to spend it. If I had more space, I'd be more circumspect and more exploratory of opposing points of view, at least where I thought arguments had merit. No one comes close to possessing all the answers on human sexuality, what is objectively abusive, and what should be considered punishable by law. I'm no exception.In fairness, the issue of adolescent and adult sexual contact is particularly difficult to categorize uniformly. I sat on a Huffington Post Live panel last month where I discussed the issue with three well-known psychologists, all of whom agreed (as do I) that the "age of consent" to sexual intercourse in US jurisdictions has less to do with inherent rightness and more to do with an arbitrary cut-off for various cultural, historical and political reasons. I've known 15 year-old kids who could make thoughtful, informed and logical choices about sexual contact, and 25 year-old developmentally normal adults who absolutely could not. The age of consent in most of the US hovers around the age of majority, another number we've picked to differentiate the comparatively protected world of a child from the colder and more unforgiving one navigated by adults.When it comes to sexual contact between even older minors and adults, though, there are at least a few key points that, for me, make these "relationships" exploitive and toxic far more often than my detractors who see Americans in particular as "hysterical," "Victorian", etc. In no particular order:1. The issue is usually less about age and more about power, control, and authority. I would not likely advocate for sex-offender registration or a felony conviction for an adult within a few years age of his or her minor sexual partner- assuming a relationship based on more or less equal footing. Stacey Rambold, the Montana teacher whose paltry sentence recently sparked outrage, was  [slightly] less culpable in my mind for being 35 years the senior of his victim than he was for being her educator. Teachers have power over students both in terms of what they can practically affect in their lives and superior insights about navigating adult life. We properly condemn and criminalize crossing this line. It's not wrong because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's wrong.2. The still organically forming adolescent brain should at least be a factor in how we view a minor's ability to engage equally with an especially far older adult. Nothing magical happens within the brain to end adolescence at 18. But the fact is, teenagers are more impulsive, more brash and less self-controlled and than adults. Adults should know better and act thusly. 18 is still arbitrary. But it's not baseless.3. What we have traditionally viewed as basically "harmless" where adult-child sexual contact is concerned is continually being challenged and rightfully so. The elite Horace Mann school in New York City, like countless institutions the world over, was apparently rife with sexual abuse by teachers on minor students for literally decades. To the extent people knew of it, I'm sure some considered it a quirk of the place, the price paid for such a dynamic and interesting faculty, a simple right of passage, or any number of things. Far too many of the victims of this "quirk" think differently, and are now responding in droves, decades after being seriously harmed with impunity.There is room for nuance, particularly with regard to the application of the criminal law. I was never a mindless hammer in a court of law and I have welcomed the insight of the psychological community when trying to do justice in this regard. Increasingly, I believe my still-active colleagues are doing the same thing.But I won't yield so quickly to counter-arguments on the "harmlessness" of "fuzzier" sexual boundaries between adults and children. For one, I know better. For another, I know the motives of a dangerous few who are making them. See NAMBLA for a reference.   

Equal Opportunity in Adoption: Necessary, Proper and Desperately Needed

“No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is homosexual.”So states, in oddly plain and blunt legislative language, the law of the State of Florida.   Last month, a Miami-Dade judge declared the law “unconstitutional on its face” and unrelated to the best interests of the child.  She appointed custody of an infant (removed from home almost immediately) to a family member who is a lesbian in a committed relationship.  Florida’s Department of Child and Family Services filed its appeal last week.  The state’s argument and the spirit of the 1977 law boil down to the idea that adoptive parenting by homosexuals is so obviously harmful to children that prohibiting it is “rationally related” to a legitimate state aim.  The idea is that heterosexuals are, by definition, better parents.  This claim, wherever it asserts itself, is more than baseless and bigoted toward homosexuals.  It is tragically shortsighted and remarkably cruel to the roughly 100,000 American children (about 7% of them in Florida) waiting to be adopted out of the foster care system.Several gay friends of mine refer to straight people as “breeders.”  And indeed, breed we do.  Heterosexuals, generally by definition, produce millions of children each year.  And a disturbing percentage of us rip our own children apart like dogs with a chew toy.  In two very different cities where I served as an ADA, I encountered fathers who sexually abused their children over years, beginning before the children were in first grade.  I saw mothers who literally starved their children to death, or pimped them out for drugs, rent or just extra cash.  I saw toddlers pressed against heating grates by one or both parents as if in a waffle iron.  I saw fathers who shook infants to blindness and epilepsy, their ribs snapping like dry twigs in the process.  In one particularly brutal shaken baby case I prosecuted in the Bronx in 2006, the mother sided with the offending father (a drug dealer) and refused to cooperate with me even while her son languished in a NICU on the edge of death.  The people who did these things came from a broad diversity of racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds and circumstances.  In fact, there were only two things common to every one of the most brutal physical and sexual abuse cases I worked on:1.  The children involved, if they survived, needed new homes and new parents.2.  The biological parents, whether perpetrators or accomplices, were all heterosexual.I’m not claiming that homosexual parents, adoptive or biological, can’t or don’t abuse their children.  I’m just saying I’ve never seen it.  Not in nearly 15 years.  The point is not that homosexuals are perfect.  The point is that they’re human, and when they are successful, compassionate, loving and stable adults who want to improve the life of a child without a home, they should be considered as adoptive parents.Opponents of homosexual adoption often try to point to non-religious, “objective factors” to support their arguments.  They never get far.  No reputable scientific evidence supports a single claim that homosexual parents will be less successful or even that they will somehow foster a homosexual lifestyle on the part of their children.  One of the last legislative pushes to prove that homosexuals are naturally disordered and dangerous as parents came from a particularly despicable Virginia legislator in 2004 (to my eternal shame, he represented my hometown of Sterling Park for seven years). The bill he finally got passed in the House of Delegates would have required social workers to investigate whether perspective adoptive parents were homosexual.  The rationale, that homosexuality was related to increased levels of child molestation among other things, was based largely on junk science spewed by a single discredited and religiously biased sociologist.  The bill, and the sociologist, were eventually routed in the Virginia senate, thanks in good measure to courageous Republicans who called this effort out for the rank bigotry that it was.Although Biblical views of homosexuality (and similar non-Judeo-Christian religious tenets) are the primary force behind laws like Florida’s and efforts like Virginia’s, I won’t engage in a wholesale bashing of these religious views.  There’s enough of that going on, and bigotry against religious people is as bad as bigotry toward anyone.  To hold strict religious views is a private and sometimes difficult choice, and I know many decent Christians (among other religious) who struggle to reconcile the doctrines of their faith with their common experience as compassionate people.  I draw the line, though, when positions based solely on religious doctrine become law in a pluralistic society.  And I draw it in red when children- discarded, debased or destroyed by the supposedly “sexually healthy” people who created them, are languishing in a far too often chaotic, uncertain and flawed foster care system.

Ted and Gayle Haggard and the "Abuse Excuse"

It's called the "abuse excuse" and most people have at least a passing familiarity with it.Mr. Haggard, of course, is the disgraced mega-church pastor from Colorado who resigned in disgrace in late 2006 for trysts with a Denver male prostitute who eventually spoke out because of Haggard's hypocrisy regarding same-sex marriage.  Haggard acknowledged his 'sin', but then qualified it to an Illinois church audience about two years later, explaining that sexual abuse, suffered as a child of seven, had led him, decades later, to engage in the homosexual acts that eventually led to his downfall.  His wife Gayle, a kind looking and sympathetic figure who has stayed by his side, released a book late last month and made a Today show appearance last week backing up her husband's explanation that his homosexual behavior with Mike Jones was caused by events in his childhood that he had yet to resolve.As I think most decent people would, I want to clarify that I'm not ranting against Gayle Haggard in any way.  Indeed, I'm happy to more or less plug her book as she has a family to support and God only knows how much debt to swim out of because of the situation her husband put her family in.  And far more importantly, I can only stand in awe of her resolve and strength in the face of what she's dealt with for more than three years- and that's just in public.  I feel for her terribly, and I hope she's able to pull herself and her children through this in a way that doesn't scar them all too deeply.  I disagree with her assessment of her husband's issues of course, but since she's chosen to stay 1) by his side, and 2) in-tune with evangelical views on the subject of homosexuality, I assume she has no other option than to shut down the analytical part of her possibly very sharp mind that would normally calculate what's going on here without much difficulty.Of course, for Ted and for Gayle, it's convenient.  As a mega-church pastor, anything is better than admitting the truth- that Haggard is a repressed homosexual from infancy forward who may have struggled mightily with his nature but eventually gave in to his impulses even in the face of his upbringing, inferences and eventual meal-ticket.  My guess is that Haggard's dodge here is part cynical deflection, but also part desperate Biblical justification.  A wise and loving God, according to most evangelicals I know, simply doesn't create homosexuality.  That "condition," viewed sometimes as a test, often as an unholy curse to be prayed over and resisted, is one that God didn't intend for any of His creatures.  If, in the sweaty fog of adolescence, you're a boy in a narrow bed whose heart beats and blood races at the thought of another male's touch, you're either doomed to the test or somehow tainted by the prince of this world.  God guarantees you a destination, but hardly an easy journey.  And so forth.  I'm not being gratuitous or anti-Christian.  I am a Christian, as I define it anyway.   My point is that, as tempting as it is for some to believe that Haggard is a godless cretin interested only in the trappings of wealth and influence that religion once delivered him, I've found that motivations, and the people behind them, are surprisingly gray rather than black or white.  I don't believe the evangelical view of homosexuality, despite Scriptural references to the contrary.  I don't think God is that cruel or that stupid.  But I don't necessarily believe that Ted Haggard is or was a complete psychopath bent on making money and amassing influence by selling God like a hair tonic to gullible believers.  The truth, more than likely, is somewhere in the middle.I lose patience with him because of what he's leaning on to describe who he is.  I don't condemn so much what he did.  Of course it was awful; a crime, albeit a minor one, and a betrayal of his family and his marriage.  But I don't blame him for acting on innate impulse, and indeed, I am sympathetic to the mercilessly rigid religious constructs he grew up with that have driven this central part of him underground to begin with.  But when he blames these indiscretions on child sexual abuse, I draw a line.  Not only is it simply incorrect to make that connection, it also contributes to the devastation of people everywhere who are survivors of such abuse.  I'm not saying he wasn't abused- he may very well have been and probably was.  I'm not in the business of doubting people who claim child sex abuse, as I have a working knowledge of how prevalent it is.  I'm saying that the abuse of him had zero to do with who he is and always has been.  To suggest otherwise is to demonize victims and blame an innate condition on some pathological etiology.  He doesn't have the right to do that- not to millions of other survivors who are homosexual or straight, or to homosexuals who have emerged as they are under completely non-abusive circumstances.Haggard is suggesting, in line with evangelical views on the subject, that his indiscretions are the product of a crime and a grave sin.  There is absolutely no psychological or otherwise scientific evidence to support this.  But Bible Christians and others who believe that homosexuality is a disability that must be either cured or endured often point to an interesting and seemingly compelling fact:  There is an unusually large percentage of homosexual males who report child sex abuse at a young age.  Yes, this is true.  I've seen it.  This tends to beg the question, then:  Isn't homosexuality, at least in part, a product of child sex abuse?Actually, no.  Increasing evidence suggests a biological/genetic component to homosexuality.  But while that's not fully established (because many in the Christian world will beat me over the head, despite common observation, with the lack of irrefutable evidence at this point), let me give you a brief tutorial in how predators work:  Many boys (girls also) who eventually emerge as homosexual in puberty and adolescence, show signs of their sexual orientation in early years.  I want to be very careful here so as not to stereotype or categorize gay males or gay people in general, and I know this is a sensitive subject.  But the fact is, experienced predators are remarkably intuitive at picking up on characteristics that help them to choose targets.  Boys who, even at very young ages, are already wrestling with gender identity and an innate sexual orientation, are not always but often identifiable to predators looking for suitable targets.  So predators looking for male children target these particular boys for three reasons:1.  They are, because of their emerging sexual orientation, already marginalized, isolated and often the victims of bullying and teasing.  They are often already alienated from their families.  They often feel alone and helpless, wishing for someone who might understand them.  Predators dream of opportunities like this.2.  Predators assume, because of their perception of the boy's apparent sexual leanings, that he'll be more open to the exploitation and abuse ('you know, since he's queer anyway, he'll probably like it,' goes the thinking).  For predators who aren't psychopathic and have to justify what they do, this is a handy tool.3.  Boys suffering sex abuse will be even less likely to report the abuse than girls because of the stigma attached to homosexuality, the perceived result or cause of the abuse in the first place.  Predators love this; they have a safer bet with a scared and shamed child.That's it in a nutshell.  Was Ted Haggard abused by a sexual predator when he was seven?  Likely, unless he's even more devious than even I believe.  Did it "turn him gay" or create desires within him that through some pscyho-babble explanation had to be lived out?   No.  I've worked with and known dozens of boys who were profoundly sexually abused by males and are confidently straight, and vice-versa.  Problem is, when a guy like Haggard hangs his own unresolved sexuality on criminal predation, he demeans the nature of boys, straight and gay, who emerge that way because of how God created them, not because of some storm they were caught in.The vast majority of child predators claim sex abuse in their childhood also- it's extremely useful to them in eliciting more lenient plea deals and sentences from prosecutors and judges all too willing to buy their sympathetic argument that "something awful in childhood made them do it."   Particularly for the faithful, this is a comforting canard.  "I don't believe in a God who would create a guy like this defendant, so I'm readily willing to accept and credit his explanation at being broken and twisted by some other poor victim in a vicious cycle of abuse."Problem is, that's often bunk.  Research by psychologist and predator expert Anna Salter and others shows that, when child predators are even threatened with a polygraph on their claims of child sex abuse, self-reporting goes down dramatically.  It's hard to swallow, folks, but the fact is no one knows where the urge to sexually harm a child comes from.  It's very easy to blame it on a cycle of abuse, but that doesn't explain it.  On the contrary, it unfairly brands victims of child sex abuse as somehow damaged and questionable, even though the vast majority of those abused actually react to the abuse by being more vigilant and protective parents and adults.But don't ask Ted Haggard to plumb those nuances.  He has his excuse, and he can sell it to quiet his tortured soul and to face his family, friends and neighbors.  Given the magnitude of the disgrace he's suffered I'm tempted to forgive him.  And as a Christian I'm commanded to.  I'll do that.  But I won't give cover to this nonsense.  Not for one minute.  There are far too many suffering souls who didn't seek out power, comfort and fame and who need the healing power of the truth, not convenient spiritual pablum.  This is for them, not Pastor Haggard.

Common Sense for Catholicism

It’s time for a brief tutorial on the dynamics, in one regard at least, of child and adolescent sex abuse. I’ve wanted to take this up for a while. The Catholic Church- my church- has endured a still unfolding nightmare regarding the abuse of mostly boys by mostly male priests. It’s without a doubt the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever experienced with regard to my faith. Perhaps the only thing more disturbing has been the reaction to it, both by many Catholics I know as friends and colleagues, and also by critics or downright haters of the Catholic Church, some of whom are even more off-base.Everyone seems to have an idea as to how this scandal blossomed like a cancerous flower in some sun-starved basement, and how to prevent it in the future. Unfortunately, it usually comes down to one of two options, neither of which will accomplish anything. The first is to eliminate gay men from the priesthood. The second is to change the nature of the priesthood so as to somehow reduce “sexual repression” or some such thing that has adult priests seeking out children as sexual partners. The first is complete nonsense. I’m willing to bet the second is mostly vacuous also.I want to start by saying I was raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed, and that I remain a practicing Catholic. There are many things I love, respect and admire about my Church. I believe that having a good priest as a close friend is a wonderful thing, and that having one in your home is a blessing. And I'm happy to say that priests were wonderful forces in my young life; my parents were personal friends with priests from our parish growing up, I was an altar boy for years, and I've never had a bad moment with a priest then or now. But the directions I see the Church tugged between, both by conservative groups within and other critics without, is taking it nowhere with regard to the issue of sexual abuse of children within the holy orders. And I know what I’m talking about.

Homosexuality and the Priesthood

Many Catholics, particularly conservative ones, mistakenly believe “gay priests” are to blame for the sex scandal. They believe that homosexuality simply equals sexual deviance, and therefore lends itself more readily to the abuse of children and underage adolescents.The Church is doing nothing to dispel this view. In late 2005, the year I joined the Bronx DA's Office child abuse unit, the Vatican released the Criteria for Discernment of Vocations for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies. The document draws a distinction between homosexual acts (grave sins) and homosexualtendencies. “Tendencies” are not grave sins, but are “objectively disordered.” And being saddled with these tendencies (which the document seems to acknowledge are not chosen by the affected person) disqualifies the affected from entrance to the holy orders.As it reads:“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”There is no explanation of why, or specific examples as to how such people, if called to be priests or nuns, would bring about “negative consequences” to the Church or anyone the church touches. But even more mystifying, there’s also a restriction against supporters of “the so-called ‘gay culture.’” This confounds me. How is a supporter of the so-called gay culture even defined? I’m not about to seek entrance to a holy order, but I did give a toast at a gay wedding in San Diego last year. Am I done for?But back to the larger point, how do any of these people, 1) those who have practiced a homosexual lifestyle but are now willing to be celibate, 2) those who have never been sexually active but have tendencies, or 3) the rest of us “supporters” present a danger to the Church in any way, particularly with regard to the sex scandal within the priesthood?The answer that many buy into is the pernicious argument that “homosexuality is disordered, so homosexuals are dangerous.”Some of this is bigotry, plain and simple. These folks don’t like gay people and are happy to scapegoat them for anything remotely plausible. But much of it is also ignorance, which of course serves as bigotry’s father, mentor and biggest promoter.The more a person believes that even homosexual tendencies are a terrible sign of an “objectively disordered” mind, the easier it is to believe that such people pose a threat in various ways.Generally favoring enlightenment over ignorance, I was thus thrilled to hear that The John Jay College of Criminal Justice (a school that was catty-corner to my last apartment in NYC, btw) is shedding much needed light on the subject. The school is apparently set to release a report demonstrating that homosexuality is not a predictor of the proclivity to commit child sexual abuse.Yes, thank you. That makes perfect sense to those of us who aren’t bigoted or ignorant, or both. Still, the anti-homosexual crowd points to the apparent demographics of the perpetrators and victims. Why are the great majority of the child victims of priests male, when all priests are (of course) male? If the abuse is same sex, then how does being homosexual not explain it?First, terms need to be defined and understood: Homosexuality is not the same thing or even related to pedophilia. Pedophiles are not homo or hetero, they're pedophiles. Their sexual attraction, even if they are exclusive, is not considered to be toward 'men' or 'women' but toward prepubescent children. If a male pedophile happens to be exclusive toward male children, he’s not a 'gay pedophile.' He’s a pedophile, exclusive to males.Hebephilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents) is a little different. The more physically developed the target child, the less pathological it is for the man to be attracted to the child (and the more we can say that his attraction fits a sexual orientation, either homo or hetero. Most adult males could fairly be described as having some hebephilic traits, meaning most men will find a hot 16 y.o., well...hot. A normal and law-abiding man knows not to actually put his hands on a minor, but he’s not abnormal if he’s a straight male who finds a teenage girl to be attractive- as long as she has fully developed secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc).In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense for a straight male to be attracted to an adolescent girl who is in or approaching the most fertile period of her life. What more or less defines a hebephile (a term not in the DSM but recognized as a paraphilia of sorts) is a guy who only wants teenagers, and has no sexual interest in an adult even if she's Beyonce Knowles or Jessica Alba. That guy has a problem. It's okay to be 30 and be aroused by a 16 year-old pop star as long as you know not to touch her. But if she ceases to be attractive to you upon reaching legal adulthood, you've got a deeper issue.So basically, pedophillic priests are simply pedophiles, and they go after little boys mostly because they're easier targets.Hebephillic priests who commit sexual abuse against physically developed adolescent boys, on the other hand, probably do have a basically homosexual orientation.This is where the homophobes claim victory with regard to their thinking. And sure, it begs the question: If there are many more boy victims, and a large percentage of them are adolescents, then can't we say that homosexual priests are responsible, at least for the abuse of the adolescents?The short answer is yes, but not because of anything related to their homosexuality. Having a sexual orientation toward men does not predispose a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent boy any more than having a sexual orientation toward women predisposes a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent girl. An adult male soccer coach going after his 15 year old female players is a criminal and probably a hebephile. But he hasn't crossed the line because he's straight. He's crossed it because he's immoral, irresponsible, anti-social, possibly mentally ill and God knows what else. Instead, folks, the reason we see more boys as victims from male offenders within the priesthood is for the following three reasons, all of them a product of simple common sense:1. Priests (male) have more ready access to boys and much less to girls. This is still true today, but was much more the case in preceding generations.2. Boys are even less likely to report sex abuse than girls, so they make safer targets.3. Pedophiles and hebephiles who infiltrate the priesthood are probably most often attracted to males exclusively. This is because the Church offers a better environment for men to abuse boys than other circumstances outside of the priesthood. But even pedophile priests who are non-exclusive still go after boys much more- they make more sense for the above two reasons.In a nutshell, that’s it. There’s nothing lurking inside the mind of the homosexual that’s bringing about this evil. If the Church believes differently, it’s because she is confusing an objectively disordered sexual orientation (pedophilia) with a non-disordered one (homosexuality). In so doing, the Church is preventing untold numbers of potentially holy men and women more than willing to give up their sexual lives in order to serve. Worse, they’re continuing to attract exactly what they don’t want, which are predators sneaking under the wire of scrutiny because of the diversion the church is on toward homosexuals.

“Sexual Repression” and the Priesthood

I’m a lawyer, not a psychologist, but I don’t buy what many have written about the “sexually repressive nature of the priesthood” causing priests to “turn into” predators, or the “unnatural state of human celibacy” somehow driving them to sexual deviancy with children and adolescents. There’s simply no psychological evidence that child sex abuse springs somehow from the demand of celibacy or anything related to the duties associated with being celibate clergy. Sexual deviancy and anti-social acts stem from many things, but sexual orientation isn’t one of them, and neither is the life and restrictions of a priest or nun.The darker, more complex explanations of twisted rules and antiquated standards birthing hideous desires are tempting, I’m sure. But I’m sorry to disappoint the Church haters and Dan Brown-esqe enthusiasts when I say this is mostly bunk.Again, I’m not a psychologist. Can an argument be made that an obsession with sex, driven by the denial of it to a naturally sexual being, produces negative emotional consequences? Perhaps.Could such consequences include sexual acting out of some sort?Again, perhaps. But sexual acting out either between priests or with lay adults is a much more likely option for an adult-oriented man looking to release repressed sexual desire- particularly when that desire focuses on adults in the first place.Once again, there are three simple reasons why sexually deviant men are not created by the priesthood, but far too often flock to it instead: The priesthood has, tragically, been the target of predators for centuries because for centuries the Church has unwittingly but continuously given them what all child predators need:1. Continued access to trusting and vulnerable victims (this is especially true for child predators because part of their pathology is that once the child passes out of their attraction zone and into adulthood, they are no longer attractive).2. A cover, if they have no sexual interest in adults.3. An institution that will protect them, and move them around when they are suspected of child abuse in a particular location.His Holiness John Paul II once said plainly that the sex abuse scandal was a “great evil.” He was correct about the predators and what they’ve done to countless victims who came to the Church for the opposite of what they received. But the true tragedy is the inadvertent use of the Church for their purposes.That, my friends, is the darkest evil we’ve faced in how this scandal has played out. The abuse was awful. The discovery by predators, individually and over the centuries, of how hospitable this otherwise noble and glorious institution would be to them, was worse. The great majority of priests are decent, honorable and holy men. Like many institutions that value trust, loyalty and honor, and that often involve interaction with vulnerable victims, the priesthood has been targeted by predatory infiltrators for eons.The saddest fact is how easy the Church has unwittingly made it for them.