Posted by Curious on March 19, 2004 at 16:40:35
Jules, I think your personal theories about learned arousal patterns are right on the money. I’d like to see this subject discussed further. You said: “I have seen first hand men and women try things out of availability, curiosity, anger, pressure or even boredom and over time have it become something that is their preference.” Then: “For a decade people in the Family were encouraged to engage in sexual acts with children and it was a common and regular occurrence in many Family communes. I think that’s enough time to get a taste for something.”
Anovagrl added: "When adults in TF were encouraged, pressured, or coerced into a wide range of deviant behavior, they no doubt laid down some arousal maps that have pretty much stuck with them over time.”
I believe it’s correct that once someone has sexually abused a minor for whatever reason (“availability, curiosity, anger, pressure or even boredom”) they can get a taste for it to the point where its part of their mental wiring. This is probably the case with many, particularly those who were repeat offenders. They haven’t changed yet, they’ve simply become voyeurs instead of active abusers. Family members like this still have the tendencies and fantasies but don’t re-offend for fear of excommunication or the System coming down on the Family. Ex-members with a taste for pedofilia may still have the desires but not offend because they are now far more aware of the laws and mores of society. However, both might re-offend if they were alone with a minor for an extended period of time and felt that no one would find out.
I suspect that many situational abusers may have actually ceased. I remember reading a post on GenX some time ago where someone (I don’t remember who) talked about one-time abusers, how people would do deviant things in a highly sexualized or coerced situation but were not inclined to re-offend. The example given was that while in prison, some men engaged in homosexual acts, but once out of prison chose not to repeat. In the case of those who abused minors, this does not make what they did any less of a crime, but at least if they are now restrained they would not be in danger of re-offending. I believe even the law recognizes the danger between those who will never reform and those who have taken the lessons to heart and are no longer considered a danger.
Jules, one of your clearest observations was this one: “What was perhaps the most interesting thing to me to observe was that people (both men and women) could engage in and seek out sexual encounters that were completely opposite from their own conscious and intellectual morals. Sexual arousal seems to be something that is hardwired in a primal part of our brain and for someone with inadequate boundaries or self-discipline, everything else can be irrelevant at that point. Endorphins are addictive and when someone is under the influence of a substance their brain chemistry is radically altered. I have learned the hard way that you should throw out everything you know about a person in that state.”
I think we need to understand sexual deviancy and child abusers in that light. But again this comes back to my thought. I like to believe (perhaps naively) that some FGs who stumbled into sex with a minor but found out that wasn’t something they liked and didn’t re-offend, have renounced it after leaving the Family. You talked about “someone with inadequate boundaries or self-discipline” giving in to temptation. Then there are those who may have later acquired adequate boundaries. Of course, theirs were lessons learned at the expense of some minor’s innocence, and the past crime is still a crime.
Perhaps this may simply be an academic discussion. After all, how would you ever know that they were not inclined to re-offend? You mentioned that when someone is under the influence of endorphins you “learned the hard way that you should throw out everything you know about a person in that state.” That is a valid observation and I think many FGs need to give that serious thought. I think one reason the subject keeps coming up about reconciliation between SGs and those who abused them is that many FG s feel that some who abused in the past have come to their senses since leaving the cult and are truly sorry and changed. If this is the case, then yes, genuine healing could come were such an offender to apologize to a person he or she abused. Whereas SG s are once burned and twice shy, and justifiably cynical, and as you pointed out, reconciliation is not to the victim's benefit.
Thanks for explaining yourself clearly and for giving examples of why the trust issue is such a big one for you and many SGs.