“For true consent to occur, two conditions must prevail. A person must know what it is that he or she is consenting to and a person must be free to say yes or no.”
Obviously, children do not have the capacity to give consent.
Incest—the family secret
Until recently, when people began to open up about childhood secrets, it was thought that incest (where the offender is a member of one’s own family or someone in a very close position of trust—such as a stepfather or stepmother) was a disgusting, rare aberration, most commonly found in the hills of Kentucky.
Disgusting, yes—but rare, no—and Kentucky, yes, but everywhere else, too.
A Canadian Public Health Agency fact sheet revealed that:
“Incest offenders reflect the same range of education, religion, occupation, intelligence and mental health status as can be found in a representative cross-section of the general population. Abusers are found among all ages, ethnocultural communities and social classes.”
Once again, because of the nature of the crime, exact statistics are impossible to gather. The FBI and the U.S. Justice Department estimate that only one in ten cases is reported. Still, from their work in the field, Susan Forward and Craig Buck estimate that ten million American women have been incest victims, while Sandra Butler19 contends that the figure is closer to twenty-five million.
Whatever the true numbers are, they are staggering, when one considers the betrayal of trust behind each and every one of those numbers.
“Incest is perhaps the most difficult kind of abuse for children to endure, because the feelings it generates are so overwhelming, confusing and conflicting. Children instinctively love their parents and other family members and cannot reconcile this love with what is being done to them. They are torn between love and hate, and tormented by the betrayal of those they trusted. They are overwhelmed by helplessness because they cannot escape; they have nowhere to go. The very people to whom they should run for protection are their abusers. And they believe that if they tell, they will destroy their families and their source of survival. They are trapped and helpless. And they are tortured by the conviction that they are bad or evil and that they are somehow to blame.20
“As if the natural attachment were not enough to immobilize victims, psychologists have recently discovered that the abusive situation itself establishes a bond between abuser and victim. This bond chains the victim to the abuser even if the abuser is completely unrelated to the victim. This grim phenomenon is known as the “Stockholm Syndrome,” and it was first detected in hostage situations where hostages were found to experience positive feelings towards their captors and negative feelings toward the police. The captors (perpetrators) reciprocated by developing positive feelings towards the hostages. This syndrome is more likely to develop in hostage (or abuse) situations which last for a prolonged period of time.... If the abuse is occurring to a child within the family, the victim is effectively a hostage, without means of escape.”21
If exhibiting the symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome, a child may appear to be very affectionate towards the abuser, but it’s generally because he or she is trying to exert some control over his or her life. Such children think that if they are particularly pleasing to the perpetrator, the abuse may end or at least their world may not fall apart any more than it already has.
A prevalent myth
Many people are under the illusion that child sexual abuse simply involves fondling (as though fondling isn’t a big deal). The reality is quite different.
In the inquiry into the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland in 1989, the victims testified that they had been fondled in the showers and beds, and some had also been subjected to sexual acts including fellatio and sodomy. Several spoke of severe physical abuse. According to John McIsaac, a former resident,
“If you went along with the sexual acts, the physical beatings weren’t going to happen as much.”22
In a survey of the crimes committed by child molesters referred to a Massachusetts forensic mental health clinic, it was found that 39 percent were confined to fondling or masturbation, but 31 percent involved oral, anal or vaginal penetration and 13 percent involved both. No data were available for 17 percent of the subjects of the study.23
A Kingston, Ontario father who sodomized his two-year-old son was so brutal that the child had to be surgically fitted with a colostomy bag.24
A study by the Kingston Sexual Behavior Clinic of 150 incarcerated sex offenders showed that 58 percent of child molesters used force beyond what was necessary to commit their crimes.25
The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect in 2001 reported that “attempted and completed sexual activity accounted for over one-third (35 percent) of all substantiated reports of sexual abuse.”
Even when the behavior of an offender may be gentle or cajoling at first, study after study shows that the activity and the use of force or coercion usually accelerates as the molestation continues. When a child molester gets away with his abuse for a period of time, it appears that he gains confidence, a sense of invulnerability and a sense of power over the victims.
What are they THINKING?
Aberrant thoughts that would never before have dared to form themselves into spoken words, much less public discussion, have now grown into foundational philosophies for a sector of groups that openly preach that sexual activity with children is wholesome. They use slogans like, “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.” Styling themselves a “sexual minority,” they dare to demand civil rights to legitimize their sexual preference (which is, of course, criminal behavior).
No matter how decent human beings may rant about the ridiculousness of such ideas, internet child pornography traffic indicates that this perspective is growing at an alarming rate.
Some are calling it “pedophilia chic.” I can barely write this, it is so nauseating.
Until recently, the taboo against using young boys to satisfy adult sex appetites was no less controversial than bestiality. It was “wrong” right across the board. Anyone who thought otherwise was regarded as the lowest of the low.
However, things are changing. In certain circles where sex with little boys is considered to be the new frontier, it’s regarded as being edgy.
Amazingly, this criminal activity is showing up for discussion by so-called “respected” academicians and physicians in academic and literary circles as well as mainstream journals and magazines.
For instance, the Journal of American Medical Association published a paper in 2002 by Peter J. Fagan, Ph.D., et al. titled “Pedophilia.” Consider the following quote from the article:
“During psychosexual development, no one decides whether to be attracted to women, men, girls or boys. Rather, individuals discover the types of persons they are sexually attracted to, i.e., their sexual orientation.” (italics added)
While I have not found any evidence to suggest that there is any more relation between homosexuality and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophilia, the move towards legitimization of pedophilia as a sexual preference bears similarities to the homosexual movement in the late 1960s.
While this writing is not a commentary on homosexuality, this new movement to view pedophiles as a legitimate minority is alarming, considering the success of the same tactics which resulted in the explosion of homosexual acceptance. Homosexuals have turned society upside-down regarding a behavior that was once viewed just as perverse as pedophilia by the majority. Now, the term “sexual orientation” in relation to pedophilia is being used more and