Child Sexual Exploitation

[WorkingMummy]

drusky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We need to know who has access to

> children, the regulatory processes in place, the

> accountability procedures, how people and

> organisations who make key decisions about

> children are themselves subject to a

> responsibility framework, reporting and feedback

> mechanisms and, most importantly, clear lines of

> sight across the whole matter so that everything

> is transparent to those who are active

> participants in society.

Is this your prescription for encouraging a healthy, integrated, balanced, comfortable attitude towards sex in young people? Regulation??????

Or are you saying (on the very narrow topic of child abuse)"we should have a sex offenders register and all who work with children should be CRB checked first". Cos dude, we have that.

As for Freud, didn't he hypothesise that women who remember that they were abused by their fathers when very young, are actually remembering that as children they sexually desired their fathers, and project this as a false memory of crime on them by their dads, out of guilt? Which is an absolutely hideous piece of shite to peddle.

Seriously, you haven't made a single good point, nor any logically pro-censorship or anti-wholistic sex education point.

[DJKillaQueen]

It goes something along the lines of once women hit puberty, they turn against their mothers and desire their fathers...............Frued imo had a very dubious understanding of psychology and sexuality which is why he is never quoted in these types of debate anymore.

[Huguenot]

"No censorship is the solution not the problem"

Censoring sex is as ridiculous as referring to Voldemort as 'he who must not be named'. It's the stunted binary moralizing of schoolchildren. By trying to 'silence' sex you create psychological illness, you don't cure it.

Whilst sitting in toilet cubicles I encounter with unnerving regularity demented neighbours who empty entire rolls of loo roll into the pan before they can have a number 2. It doesn't take rocket science to recognize this as a person who has been deranged by early childhood parental hectoring.

"We need to know who has access to children, the regulatory processes in place, the accountability procedures, how people and organisations who make key decisions about children are themselves subject to a responsibility framework, reporting and feedback mechanisms and, most importantly, clear lines of sight across the whole matter so that everything is transparent to those who are active participants in society."

Whilst rooted in goodwill, I find it extraordinary that intelligent adults really believe that socially unacceptable behaviour can be controlled through bureaucracy.

Crimes aren't committed by upstanding, honest and transparent individuals - but by duplicitous, dishonest and manipulative miscreants.

Reasonable diligence and oversight is worthwhile, but if it cripples the system it's pointless.

We need to be empowering and inspiring child workers to do their best. We need to lift the veil of secrecy and psychological abuse that allows sexual abuse and unhealthy obsessions to go unspoken and unaddressed.

It needs to be stressed that most of this silence and warped behaviour is created by Victorian moralists treating sex as a disease that must be hidden from sight.

[DJKillaQueen]

"Crimes aren't committed by upstanding, honest and transparent individuals - but by duplicitous, dishonest and manipulative miscreants.

We need to be empowering and inspiring child workers to do their best. We need to lift the veil of secrecy and psychological abuse that allows sexual abuse and unhealthy obsessions to go unspoken and unaddressed."

Absolutely spot on in both respects. And the CBRC check doesn't protect children from abuse....it only protects children from abusers that have been caught and convicted previously. Child abusers still seek out positions where they can be in close access to children.

But I do think that children are in a better position to defend themselves because of things like childline and open discussion of abuse and even portrayal of such storylines in drama accessible to them. For all the ills of the internet and open media there is an upside too, and I will take some convincing that open exposure makes things worse rather than better.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I do think that children are in a better

> position to defend themselves because of things

> like childline and open discussion of abuse and

> even portrayal of such storylines in drama

> accessible to them. For all the ills of the

> internet and open media there is an upside too,

> and I will take some convincing that open exposure

> makes things worse rather than better.

The only 'downside' (if indeed it can be seen as that) is that parents are so utterly paranoid nowadays. I doubt there is any more kiddy fiddling going on now than there was, say, 40 years ago - in fact there may even be less. But all the 'open exposure' has made parents gibbering wrecks.

[DJKillaQueen]

I absolutely agree with that loz. And it's not just the paranoia, it's the health and safety obsession too. Kids can't climb trees anymore, play ball in the street or just explore the world with the kind of innocence that made childhood fun. Instead they are instilled with a sense of potential danger around every corner, unless they rebel against that and then we label them anti-social.

[drusky]

Thanks for your posts... wow! far too many posts and points raised for me to respond to on the hoof. This is the drawing room after all... A lot of them well considered and put across with conviction. The original poster, appears to be saying something along the lines of, which is what I'm basically addressing, sexual abuse of children happens and needs to be stopped, curtailled, managed, in some way. I might be wrong in this - but it is how I read it.

You might, perhaps, not like it, but that is what all the posters on this thread have, IMHO, got in common. We want to stop, avoid, address, sexual abuse of children. Which for me comes down to the matter of how this happens and what it would look like.

I've read Freud extensively and, though other writers are out there, he basically sets the benchmark for writing on sexuality, sexual desire and sexual identity. Which is really what we are also talking about. I understand your point about what's called phallocentric Freudian discourse, DJ, but you really might like to revisit, as in read again, a lot of his works. It is less prejudicially biased than you might at first think.

Huguenot - you have misquoted me. You might like to think about how that came about.

WorkingMummy - you ask a lot of questions.

Loz - you're not wrong.

A great thread.

[Huguenot]

I assume you're referring to the censorship comment drusky?

I read your post for a long time, trying to make sense of it. I have no reason to 'think about how that came about'.

I came to the conclusion that after your 100 word discourse on the requirement for paperwork, bureaucratic oversight and systems (of which censorship is a part) that you meant that your 'no' referred to immediately prior posters.

If I misunderstood you drusky it was because your comments were inconsistent and your meaning was vague.

I have altered the quote, you'll notice that it doesn't change the meaning or context of anything else in my post.

[Saffron]

Did you read Freud in a academic context? I ask this b/c your understanding of Freud, as you present here, is very narrow in context and also out of date with the modern fields of psychology, biology, and neuroscience. If it was read in an academic context, it should have been presented in a more balanced format.

Freud was a benchmark. His hypotheses have long since been surpassed. And although his writings are very interesting, in so far as they formed a platform from which modern psychology grew, they were even in his day surpassed for example by his onetime sympathiser Jung. All of their early theories have now been refuted or revised by our understanding of psychology and neurobiology, for example gender identity and sexuality as outcomes of foetal hormone exposure.

I mention all this because I feel quite strongly that presenting Freud's hypotheses as accepted theories --which they are emphatically not-- could actually do more harm than good to platforms such as the OP's original discussion about starting a grass roots group for support/change in area of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The OP has a worthy, if somewhat currently muddled, cause which would do well to steer clear of dodgy passe pseudo-pop psych, IMHO, as it does nothing to help clarify or support the OP's cause.

I think it's not uncommon that causes like the OP's start off a little out of focus before maturing to truly excellent grass roots campaigns. Hopefully the Forum has been (and will continue to be) a good sounding board to that end. This discussion of Freud, while very interesting, probably will not help this campaign mature (except in so far as an example of that upon which the campaign shouldn't be based). Freud probably deserves a thread unto himself.

drusky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for your posts... wow! far too many posts

> and points raised for me to respond to on the

> hoof. This is the drawing room after all... A

> lot of them well considered and put across with

> conviction. The original poster, appears to be

> saying something along the lines of, which is what

> I'm basically addressing, sexual abuse of children

> happens and needs to be stopped, curtailled,

> managed, in some way. I might be wrong in this -

> but it is how I read it.

>

> You might, perhaps, not like it, but that is what

> all the posters on this thread have, IMHO, got in

> common. We want to stop, avoid, address, sexual

> abuse of children. Which for me comes down to the

> matter of how this happens and what it would look

> like.

>

> I've read Freud extensively and, though other

> writers are out there, he basically sets the

> benchmark for writing on sexuality, sexual desire

> and sexual identity. Which is really what we are

> also talking about. I understand your point about

> what's called phallocentric Freudian discourse,

> DJ, but you really might like to revisit, as in

> read again, a lot of his works. It is less

> prejudicially biased than you might at first

> think.

>

> Huguenot - you have misquoted me. You might like

> to think about how that came about.

>

> WorkingMummy - you ask a lot of questions.

>

> Loz - you're not wrong.

>

> A great thread.

[DJKillaQueen]

I couldn't agree more with that Saffron.

[drusky]

Good informed comments on a serious subject, particularly Saffron. The aversion to Freud is perfectly understandable. If he's shocking now, imagine what he was like in his day. The idea that our sexuality, far from being pre-determined, is, essentially, constructed, blows away any idea that we might be, at any one time, in control of our (sexual) selves. Indeed, in control of anything, if the Freudian unconscious has anything to do with it. That said, I'd love to hear more about 'sexuality...' as an outcome of '...foetal hormone exposure.' Are you sure you're not confusing sexuality with gender identity?

To get back on track; the OP doesn't strike me as particularly well-informed about why adults are sexually, or indeed, otherwise, attracted to children. They come across as reactionary - I don't like this so, er, I'm going to set up a, er, I know, a website... about, er, child abuse, sexual exploitation... er, pornography. And access to it.

They are clearly clever. They are clearly concerned. So why don't they go away and learn a bit more about the current state of affairs? Why do they think their background and experience is currently enough? I'm sorry but Freud is totally relevant to the matter of why adults abuse children. Another is Foucault. I think you might find yourself cringing at that thought as well, Saffron. Now you know how I feel when I hear deterministic theories of human sexual identity.

How I think this thread could 'mature' is if someone who is involved, professionally perhaps, with abused children, posted.

[Saffron]

drusky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To get back on track; the OP doesn't strike me as

> particularly well-informed about why adults are

> sexually, or indeed, otherwise, attracted to

> children. They come across as reactionary ...

So far, you've not put across any comments to suggest that you are any better informed or less reactionary.

[drusky]

you misunderstand me Saffron. I really want to know about how sexuality is determined by foetal hormone exposure. This is the drawing room you're in so remember; author, book, publisher, chapter, page number(s), quote...

[Saffron]

drusky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd love to hear more

> about 'sexuality...' as an outcome of '...foetal

> hormone exposure.' Are you sure you're not

> confusing sexuality with gender identity?

>

No, I'm not confusing them. Foetal hormone exposure is resposible for many developmental aspects which will affect individuals' later behaviours. However, to indicate that these are "outcomes" of hormone exposure does not necessarily preclude there being environmental factors associated with them, such as personal life experiences. In fact, I never stated that these were deterministic theories at all. (That is something you have incorrectly inferred.) Acutally I can't think of any credible current theories on sex/sexuality/gender/etc that are entirely deterministic (ie all nature, no nurture).

I don't find Frued cringe-worthy at all. It's odd to me that you infer this incorrectly as well. I find Freud quite interesting from a historical point of view in the same way I find the Flat Earth Society, Homeopaths, and Creationists interesting.

It seems you could do with a dose of your own advice: go away and learn more about the current state of affairs.

[DJKillaQueen]

There ya go drusky.....it's all there. I can dig out more papers if you like.

http://ctldev.boisestate.edu/programs/documents/MustanskiChiversandBailey%282002%29.pdf

All kinds of things are going on during pregnancy......

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v69/n2/full/pr9201124a.html

[DJKillaQueen]

lol...you too have visited the Flat Earth Society Saffron? I had great fun on there for a month or so......

[Saffron]

Another interesting one here... http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=53036

[Saffron]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> lol...you too have visited the Flat Earth Society

> Saffron? I had great fun on there for a month or

> so......

:)

[first mate]

A bit of a tangent but perhaps a pointer: there is some evidence to suggest that female dogs that lie between male dogs in the womb are more likely to develop more masculine (testosterone mediated) behaviours, that is they might be more reactive and assertive, they are more likely to develop sexually dimorphic behaviours like leg cocking at urination. The thinking is that the developing male pups produce more testosterone in the womb environment and this impacts on the developing female pup.

I don't know if you are au fait with the science of foetal programming, but this is an area of research most likely to describe a host of hormonal influences and their effects on brain and organ development in the womb.

Sexuality is a different matter, of course.

[WorkingMummy]

Mariella Frostrup is presenting Bringing Up Britain on Radio 4 tonight. Title: "Parenting and Pornography". 8pm

[uncleglen]

Thanks for that fm- we always wondered why my sister's bitch boxer cross tried to mate with our brother-in-law's leg!

[first mate]

uncleglen, that kind of humping is something both dogs and bitches do and is non sexual, it's more just general excitement. Anyway, don't wnant to go off thread.

[bint_cj]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of far more interest to me (in the nurture debate)

> is some evidence that shows that during childhood,

> and in some adults too, the brain deals with

> extreme trauma in some peopple, by turning that

> trauma into a pleasurable experience. It's one

> theory behind why some abused children become

> themselves abusers. In some rape victims for

> example, rape instead of continuing to be a

> traumatic memory will become a fantasy - not one

> that they want to act out necessarily - but the

> psychological switch is made all the same.

i can say in at least one case i know this to be the case. my child was abused and the abuser themself was abused as a child. they said the same - that their abusive experience became confused over time and they began to feel guilty because when they thought of their abuse, they felt pleasure as well as pain or grief. they also said they began to fantasize about the abuse in a positive way and were conflicted about their abuser, even though they knew it was wrong, hence the guilt. in their case the abuse they inflcited on my child was the same thing they themself haad suffered and spent years fantasizing about so it did become something they acted out during stressful periods. i should also say that they spent a great deal of time fighting the negative thoughts and that what they fantasized about was not regarding children. so not all child abusers have a direct attraction to children, there are many factors ie control, opportunity, anger, no sexual boundaries...

i honestly think a huge part of the answer lies in two things..

1) to get rid of the stigma around abuse on a family/community/culture level so enabling the secrecy to disappear

2) to get into the head of the abuser and find out what causes the crime to occur. this would be from many angles including i suppose, biology/nurture/psychology

i have no idea how to do this but i know that i had he chance to talk to the abuser in my case and hear the process of how he can to do what he did. not an easy listen but those kind of conversations give insight into the mentality behind the crime. we have enough anger and uproar, what is needed is a non emotive approach i think..

i also agree that paranioa and over protectiveness doesn't do much good, most abuse happens with those who are trusted and thus we are not concerned about those individuals and don't protect against them as we honestly shouldn't have to.

we can arm ourselves and our children (thos who are old enough to understand..) with knowledge but the sad fact is that it may only prevent repeat incidents, not the initial attacks..

sorry for rambling, i hope that was a valid contribution

[Loz]

bint_cj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sorry for rambling, i hope that was a valid contribution

Don't apologise - that was a very interesting and pertinent read.

[DJKillaQueen]

Thank you for that post bint_cj.

It validates the research that is ongoing. And there are two aspects to that research. One is to try and find other ways to heal the psychological trauma (so the switch from trauma to fantasy isn't made). And the other aspect is to find ways to break the cycle. Stopping abuse from happening in the first place is the best way to not produce more damaged adults to continue the cycle. But I agree that for that to happen, there has to be a more open approach to the issues and a removal of stigma in order to create an environment where people can seek help before they abuse. And there also needs to be more funding put into psychiatric and mental health services. Those services can't cope with demand as it is and very few people with mental health issues receive anything like the length of treatment they need.