The following information comes from the eight arousability studies in adults to child sexual stimili that Sarah Goode cites in her book Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children, 2010, and there probably are some others too. A summary of the studies (quoting from Goode) and a few possible reasons for such attractions:
The five studies:
- Freund and Costell, 1970 - 48 Czech soldiers - 58% showed penile responses to images of young children.
Quinsey et al, 1975 - no numbers of participants given - 50% had erections to images of young children.
Freund and Watson, 1991 - no numbers given - 19% 'misclassified' as having an erotic preference to minors in a plethysmography study.
Fedora et al, 1992 - 66 males from hospital staff and the community - 17% showed a penile response that was paedophilic.
Nagayama Hall et al, 1995 - 80 male volunteers from general population - 20% self-reported paedophilic interest; 26.5% exhibited penile response to such material.
The three surveys:
- Briere and Runtz, 1989 - nearly 200 university males - 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children; 9% described sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of young children; 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught.
Smiljanich and Briere, 1996 - 279 undergraduates (99 male, 188 female) - 22% of males, and 3% of females, admitted some sexual attraction to little children. 14% of the males used child pornography; whilst 4% admitted masturbating to fantasies involving children; 3% admitted they would have sex with a child if undetected. 4% of the females admitted to using child pornography with none in either of the other two categories.
Becker-Blease et al, 2006 - 531 undergraduate males - 7% admitted a sexual attraction to 'little children'; 18% admitted to sexual fantasies of children; 8% masturbated to these fantasies; 4% admitted they would have sex with a child if not caught.
So, these were just arousability studies, and they don't necessarily indicate these people were paedophiles. Some possible reasons why some adults are sexually aroused by sexual material involving younger children:
1. There were problems with the studies - i.e., the methodology, selection of subjects (only sex-offenders perhaps), and possible priming effects during or before the studies.
2. The lack of such images in the general media, or their availability in general. It does seem to be a tendency that humans are more drawn to what is unusual - the exotic - than to the familiar, and giving these more attention - see 9. Also, perhaps we still have the influences from our Victorian past, making even nudity of children taboo - see 6.
3. Possible priming from previous exposure to erotic fiction - e.g., Fanny Hill, Walter, Lolita, etc., or from the many films that have similar content, i.e., any having erotic content featuring children, or perhaps from adult pornography that often evokes a young image - Lolita, Schoolgirl, Teen babe, etc.
4. The Primary/Secondary sexual attraction theory, which might account for this, i.e., that there has been a prior sexual attraction to prepubescents, and is subsequently invoked whilst looking at the images or listening to erotica. Since some of the studies involve undergraduates, they will presumably be quite young, and this theory will make it more likely for these subjects to be affected rather than those older.
5. The naughtiness or badness of the images, provoking a reaction. The prosecutions of some art photographers, often reported in the media, and the detailed reporting of child rape cases might have an effect here. It is not as if there is an abundance of such images in the media, and any associations are generally negative. These kinds of images may be numerous but they are not casually found - not before the internet arrived, at least.
6. Some people apparently are aroused by simple nudity, which perhaps comes from item 2, or from religious beliefs. Was this screened for in the studies? Perhaps someone could do some studies with naturists and non-naturists (as it seems many naturists can sublimate their sexual impulses), or with some of the primitive tribes. This should at least rule out simple nudity as a factor.
7. It is quite likely, given the numbers of males who view pornography, that many males will objectify any image subject, and not concern themselves with the reality, as when viewing child images. Possibly they will know that any kind of sexual activity with a child would be wrong, but they might be able to disconnect and indulge in fantasy whilst being aroused by any images - an element of freedom to do or be what one wants.
8. Another factor that might play a role is testosterone and the sexual lives of the subjects. Those with a more active sexual life or having more testosterone perhaps being more likely to respond to any stimuli - the new being more exciting to spice up their existing sex lives.
9. This might be part of 8, that males (and females) are more likely to be aroused by those things that are new to them rather than those they are already familiar with (the novelty bias), but this will also possibly apply to any adult stimuli. The amount of adult pornography available might have an affect here in that perhaps many are becoming habituated to this.
10. The affects of other children in the early environment might play a role. Some work by Cantor has suggested that the youngest of siblings will be more likely to develop paedophilia, or to commit sexual offences concerning children to be correct, and this too might have an effect here. Having no younger siblings, some might not develop the nurturing that often takes place towards those younger, and hence be more open to sexual feelings towards them. This could be reflected in their responses to the material used in the studies.
11. An additional reason might be the way we either identify with the victim or perpetrator, since this is often the case - some imagining themselves in one particular role rather than the other.
12. Lastly, perhaps many still have the belief that children are inherently innocent, so the eroticism of innocence versus sex might have an effect for some.
The wide range of those affected in the eight studies must suggest something, since it is just not possible to take any of these at face value without querying the data and searching for possible reasons for there being such disparities. Goode did suggest that surveys would likely lead to under-reporting due to the stigma of doing so, but why would we use any one of these as reliably reflecting reality, and representative of all adult males. And, even if, as Goode suggested, a minimum of 20% do show such reactions to child sexual stimuli, are we to therefore conclude they must be paedophiles or latent paedophiles when I have given several reasons why this might not be the case. I am sure others might find additional reasons.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed