Questions and implications
Submitted by Mark on May 14 1999 at 23:12:58
In reply to A Lutheran pastor/psychologist on pedophilia Submitted by Heather on May 07 1999 at 20:30:44
|
Questions and implications "pedophilia involving adult child sexual contact is not love but genitalized sexuality." At first I thought Underwager was saying that the feelings pedophiles have are not love, but are only genital. Although I do not have sexual contact with boys, I assume that the feelings of BLers who do are not much different from mine. My feelings are definitely not only or even primarily genital; in fact even my sexual feelings are often not genital. So my first reaction was that Underwager's argument started from a misunderstanding of our sexual orientation. But then I realized that it's not BLer's feelings that are important, but rather how the child or adolescent understands the situation. Maybe what Underwager means is "pedophilic sex cannot be understood by a child or adolescent as part of love, but only as genitalized sexuality." It's clear that the young person can have strong emotional feelings for an adult, and that he can also have strong sexual feelings. Apparently Underwager is saying that he is not yet mature enough to connect these feelings. Thus he sees only the genital aspect of the sexual activity, and learns incorrectly that sex is genital. This results in sexual dysfunction in adulthood. An implication of this argument would seem to be that sexual activity among children or adolescents would have similarly harmful effects, and should also be prohibited. I do wonder how much of Underwager's view is speculation. Is there any evidence to back it up? I was suprised that Underwager's argument sounds very much like a psychological theory that could be tested, after he started out by claiming that his argument was based on moral rather than scientific concerns. "By definition a child has not yet developed an adequate, secure sense of self and reasonable self acceptance. Reciprocal intimacy, if not impossible, becomes difficult and unlikely. The disparities in emotional, cognitive, and moral capacities impose such barriers on the relationship that the fullness and richness of a personal relationship cannot be developed. We do not believe that it is possible for an adult and a child to have the unity, wholeness, intimacy, and oneness that is the highest expression of our common humanity." Certainly the emotional and cognitive aspects of an adult-child relationship (weather it involves a BLer or not) are not the same as those of an adult-adult relationship, but I question whether they can be judged to be less full or rich. Of course, "full" and "rich" depend on the person's point of view; a straight boy, a gay boy, a straight man, a gay man, and a BLer will all see it differently. I happen to think that a close loving relationship between adult and child can be a very high expression of humanity. On RDC, Heather wrote that Underwager writes that sexual love is alone the highest expression of our common humanity, having in mind "the fact that sexual unity appears in the Judeo-Christian tradition as a model for the unity of God." If Underwager is correct, then BLers can never express their humanity in as high a way as straight people can, nor can they have unity with God or understand God as well as the rest of the world. To be honest, this sounds like a sophisticated way of maintaining the old stereotype that pedophilia amounts to emotional immaturity. Also, it does not necessarily follow from Underwager's understanding of relationships that childhood sexual activity is genitalized. If it is not "the best that a sexual relationship can be", it still doesn't follow that it will prevent the youth from eventually having the best possible relationship later. I think Underwager is confusing two different arguments--one scientific (sex in childhood leads to genitalized sexuality which leads to dysfunction), and the other moral (sex should only be in the context of a relationship that is at the highest possible level of unity and intimacy). I think Finkelhor's argument is much stronger; i .e., the issue of informed consent. Of course, there is also the moral argument that God intends for sex to be between two people in a permanent monogomous relationship. A couple more questions: "Bakan holds out sexuality as the touchstone for understanding humanity." So what does the sexuality of pedophiles contribute to the understanding of humanity? I would love to read more by Underwager, since you have commented about his positive approach to BLers. I am especially interested in his "Proposed Model for Treatment of Pedophilia". What does it involve? Mark |