Behavioral models and the sex offender

[BlackShanglan]

This is a response to Sex&Death's post on another thread. Because we seemed to be moving away from the purpose of that thread itself, I've posted here rather than continue the conversation on that thread. The thread can be found here: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=16304323&postcount=104

By "deeper" I do not mean "better." I do not take "depth" as a value judgement, but, rather as a qualitative descriptor. The perspective I draw on for the meaning of "depth" is primarily from depth psychology (see this for explanation: http://www.tearsofllorona.com/depth.html ). It is a body of work within psychology that I personally value more than other bodies of work in psychology such as cognitive behavioral, rational emotive or developmental. Within depth psychology, I gravitate most strongly toward acrhetypal psychology (also called imaginal psychology) which is a body of work originated by psychologist James Hillman and his colleagues.

Thanks very much for the link; it offers a very helpful explanation of the term as you’ve used it. It gave me a good foundation for understanding both your use of the term and the roots of some of your ideas that you’ve referenced before and within this post.

That said, the term is an interesting choice to me on a semantic level – recognizing, by that, that it’s not your choice in that the field appears to be called “depth psychology” by its practitioners. I find their choice of term intriguing in that it does, given the connotations of the words “deep” and “depth,” especially in the context of thought, seem to imply a certain superiority through its very nomenclature. Something like the “high church” and “low church” divisions – it’s difficult not to see those terms as inherently making valuative statements about the things to which they refer. But perhaps I’ve been reading too much Derrida. Still, it makes me appreciate the more this statement:

I have known cognitive behavioral pracitioners, and even strict behavioralists, who have a quality of depth of soul, which they would of course deny, that infuses their work and deepens their mechanistic method into fine art and heart. Depth, the way I see it, isn't a quality of some ideologies and not others. Rather, it is a quality that is brought to any given perspective by the practitioner. Even more, depth is not only a quality, but is a way or style of perpsective or of seeing that sees through thoughts, feelings and behaviors into their underlying dynamics.

I agree here, and I would also add that at least from my own perspective, I don’t think that cognitive behavioral practice necessarily requires a rejection of soul or spirit, at least not in any method that isn’t egoistically dogmatic. I think it’s possible to view some types of problems as best solved through a cognitive behavioralist model while still accepting that there are other elements of life and behavior. I’d add the medical model into that as well. I might, for instance, feel strongly that a patient’s deep depression has an emotional basis and is not simply a matter of brain chemistry imbalance. If, however, she’s retreated into a nearly wholly non-interactive state in which I can’t even speak to her, medication might help push her back into conscious interaction sufficiently that we can start to get at the issues involved. I’m not so much a proponent of any one theory as a proponent of keeping the whole toolbox open; I think that there’s enough interaction between the various elements of mind and body, spirit and psyche, disease and desire, that it’s worth considering all of them – and especially considering that sometimes the same presenting behaviors may, in two different individuals, be constructed from different roots.

I do feel the schools of psychology to which I refer are deeper, because depth is a quality that they directly consider, cultivate and value. The main focus of them is not behavioral change, the cure of mental illness, nor the psychopharmacological comfort of individuals within our social context. The main focus of depth psychology is to cultivate and be guided by "soul," which is the English word for "psyche."

I understand you here, and in this I do believe you are correct, and that there are schools that don’t wish to engage with this concept – although I think there is a difference between focusing on different goals and rejecting the existence of all other possible goals. For instance, some practitioners of cognitive behavioral approaches of psychology might see the focus on depth as important, but see it as something commonly pursued elsewhere – through art, or church, or sexuality, etc.

In the practice of depth psychology as you describe it, I am perhaps am enough of a cranky old empiricist to have a few reservations. Cultivating the soul is a noble goal, but the cynic within me observes that it appears to be a non-measurable goal. When one is attempting to help someone his to cultivate his/her soul, how does one know how one should do it, if one is doing it, or if one is doing it correctly? I do not, to be clear, wish to go down the path of assuming that that which cannot be measured has no value. However, I question how one knows that one person is suited to guide another when results appear by their nature unlikely to be measured. What keeps this from turning into “teaching people to live their lives as I live mine”? I find this a particularly germane question when looking at the comments on the web link about “various sorts of psychological initiations into adulthood--ideally, with the help of wiser and more mature adults--in order to attain […] maturity.” That is, on some levels, an appealing model to me; I like the idea of people finding mentors to guide them through the difficult process of maturing and learning about all aspects of their lives. However, on other levels I question how one judges who has the wisdom and maturity to fulfill this role – because human nature appears, to me, to make it likely that nearly everyone will feel qualified to do so. What prevents this from becoming a system in which bad advice is perpetuated for bad reasons?

I would say it is an archetypal perspective [lucid explanation follows].

I recognize what you’re saying here, and to some extent I agree. However, I think the devil’s in one of these details – the point where you say that you think that we have more in common than we have separating us. This, perhaps, may be true as well, but I doubt whether it means that we can “know” any one individual’s soul, or “know” the archetypal universal soul in a way that allows meaningful application to actual people. I’d suggest that the two great myths of humanity are that we are all really basically the same and that we are all fundamentally and distinctly different. The sins of the latter are perhaps more obvious, as they permit us to “other” differing groups of people to a degree that allows us to reject their basic humanity and the ethical considerations that go with that. But I think the former also problematic in its own way. What concerns me is that at its heart, if one is not careful, one can eventually find “what’s good for me is good for everyone,” and there’s all manner of hell behind those good intentions as well. I don’t think it to be true; I think different people have different spiritual and intellectual needs in the same way that they have different physical needs. I’ve met too many people who would be miserable leading my life to think otherwise, although I think it in many aspects the most pleasurable life imaginable – and, amusingly, the aspects I prize most highly are the ones that others find the most tedious imaginable.

[Comments on treating sex offenders]:
I feel it has to be addressed at the cultural and individual levels simulataneously for the best outcomes. I believe the problem exists in large part because we culturally deny and repress certain images, in this case, sex with children. If we do not give a cultural context for the images we are trying to eradicte, then we are mostly doomed to failure because we cannot eradicate any image from the cultural and individual imagination, we can only force superficial behavioral change, which is ineffective from my perpspective. As it stands, anyone consciously experiencing fantasies of sex with children is socially and culturally suspect, which sets up a conflcit with the natural flow of psyche, which does not judge any image. So, we repress these images from consciousness, and some of us experience such a great conflict in doing so that we obsess and are compelled to act them out or we impulsively act them out.

I think I’m with Dr. M. on rejecting the “hydraulic” model of repression leading to more explosive enactment; otherwise no desire could ever be checked in any way, which seems to be empirically a difficult stance to maintain. However, I do see where you’re going with the idea of how to manage such images culturally, and I agree that the message “you’re never allowed to have that thought” is much more difficult to work with than the message “this thought can and should be contextualized in this manner.” Certainly I agree with you on the essentially Freudian principle that incestuous and pedophilic desire are problems not because they are unnatural but because they are essentially naturally-arising impulses that we must be taught to censor rather than desires only occurring in pathological states, and that the mechanism by which we censor them is an important area for investigation.

The treatment methods currently accepted are medically modelled and aimed at stopping behavior and arresting the underlying psychological process. Thus, we get ever-growing institutions and not healing. Our "mental health" treatment system is based on a mediacl model which considers measurable empirical evidence to be the sole indicator of acceptable success. Our system is based on an empirically measureable medical model because our culture is based on money, and the thrid-party pay system (insurance companies) drive what is considered to be acceptable and non-acceptable [mental helath] treatment and outcomes.

All of this is quite true, and I agree that it has problems in it. However, non-empirical models also have problems, notably the issue of how any person or method can be determined to be effective or worth heeding. I think there is this, too, in the treatment of sex offenders; beyond the monetary demands for an empirical model, there is immense pressure from – I would argue justified – concern about the behavior of persons who fail to restrain these desires. There are very grave empirical effects, and so I think it not wholly unreasonable to ask for some proof that the behavior is being reduced.

I believe superficial behavioral change is ineffective because I happen to find the closed system fluid dynamic metaphoric model of psychic energy a valid and valuable image. Within that model, if we repress a fantasy image, it will try as hard as it can to get back into consciousness, even to the point of causing us psychological, physical and/or social harm in its quest to reach the light of day. If we change the behaviors driven by the fantasy that have caused us problems without integrating it into our consciousness, then the fantasy will take another form and manifest in some other area of our life until we get the message.

While not a great fan of the “hydraulic” metaphor (for which term I thank Dr. M.), I do agree that repression alone is not enough. However, I think that repression of actions – and I include obsessive, deliberate, pleasure-driven fantisization as an action – has a role to play while those deeper issues are being worked upon. I think it is important at times to check the thought and remind oneself that it leads to an inappropriate actions and should not be indulged. Investigated, yes; examined, yes; indulged and petted, no. That said, I think that going the other way around – repression without examination, as opposed to examination without repression – is also a problem; as you state, if that decision is never integrated into a fuller idea of the spirit and mind and how they have arrived at that desire in the first place, it’s not likely to be a lasting cure. Possibly, however, we differ here; I do accept a model that allows for some behaviors, in some persons, to be biologically determined. In such cases, one faces the most difficult of obstacles, as no amount of therapy is likely to help if a desire is chemically mandated.

Our measure of sanity in our contemporary culture is essentially social congruence. So, while, for example, the sociopathy of many politicians, CEO's and corporations is acceptable because it is socially and culturally congruent, having sex with children is not because it is not socially congruent. I do not measure sanity (or morality) by how socially or culturally congruent it is. Behavioral change, to me, is at best, a band-aid that makes social and individual life less conflictual and more comfortable.

Hmmm. I’m not sure I’d call it social congruence; I tend to see it more as a matter of power dynamics and ability to direct trace results of actions. That is, CEO’s and corporations can and do make decisions that disregard the essentially worth and humanity of thousands of people largely because they have the power to do so and because legally it’s nearly impossible to establish individual guilt in collective actions. Child molesters, I would argue, are more socially stigmatized because it’s easier to perceive both the nature of their actions and the results thereof. There, there is one acting party and a clear victim with direct and instant results; it’s always easier to get people angry about that than about more distant or indirect causes. Thus, for instance, we’re more worried about bird flu (single identifiable cause, fairly immediate result) than about the results of a high-meat, low-fiber, low-fruit-and-vegetable diet (multiple causes and effects, long term result) despite the fact that the latter will certainly result in vastly more premature deaths and lost years of lives across the population as a whole.

But I’m curious about your comments on social congruency and morality. I’m not wholly sure I’m interpreting it correctly. On the one hand, when you discuss corporations, it seems to me that you mean “making things look socially acceptable when in reality they may be harmful.” On the other hand, I don’t see that that works well on the topic of sex with children, as this is physically as well as emotionally harmful and I don’t think can be read simply as “only a problem because we don’t like it socially.”

With pedophiles or others, the real treatment starts when we create a psychologically safe, trusting and transformative container within which the work can happen and in which the stuck fantasy material is validated as reality and not morally judged and we then say, "Draw a picture of the fantasy, or dance it, or write a story about it, or talk about it." The psyche does not care about nor know the difference between metaphoric thought, ritual behavior, and literalized or acted out fantasy. Doc, like the rest of the main stream, would stop there and call simply expressing the fanatsy nonsense and dangerous, which it is if the process stops there. He would be right. Catharsis is only one aspect of the healing process and is not nearly sufficient in and of itself.

Alas, I feel we have no cultural or social context for such a healing treatment process, and we won't any time soon because, as a culture, we are threatened by the irrationailty of the unconscious and like to pretend it doesn't exist because we fear losing the illusion of ego control over our lives and world, and thereby losing our comforts.

S&D

Here’s where I would like to hear more. I can see that catharsis could be a tool in the process of treatment, but I would like to know where it goes from there. My own qualms come not from the acknowledgement of the desire itself, or even discussing it or depicting it symbolically, but from the uncritical repetition of such depictions, which seems to me merely a means of practicing or re-ifying the desire likely to increase the wish to act upon it. I see what you mean about a cathartic process in which one does acknowledge and face this desire and discuss it in ways that can help open up new avenues of dealing with it. My question is, what would those avenues be? What is the next step after catharsis?

Thanks for the most interesting explanation, and I hope that I haven’t asked so many questions and made so many objections as to wholly irritate you.

Shanglan

 

[Sex and Death]

Thanks very much for the link; it offers a very helpful explanation of the term as you’ve used it. It gave me a good foundation for understanding both your use of the term and the roots of some of your ideas that you’ve referenced before and within this post.

That said, the term is an interesting choice to me on a semantic level – recognizing, by that, that it’s not your choice in that the field appears to be called “depth psychology” by its practitioners. I find their choice of term intriguing in that it does, given the connotations of the words “deep” and “depth,” especially in the context of thought, seem to imply a certain superiority through its very nomenclature. Something like the “high church” and “low church” divisions – it’s difficult not to see those terms as inherently making valuative statements about the things to which they refer. But perhaps I’ve been reading too much Derrida. Still, it makes me appreciate the more this statement:

Perhaps you'd be interested in deconstructing the term?

I don't claim that the term, "depth," is superior, as I've suggested, but I do claim that it is both redemptive and more true to the essence and origin of psychology, particulalry considering the etymology and phenomenology of the word "psyche." Most contmeporary psychologies have reduced psyche to one of many things it is greater than but, perhaps, in most cases, inclusive of, i.e., behavior, feelings, imagination, neurology, development. That is a gross and incomplete list. What I would also claim is that depth psychology is the closest psychology to the taproot that we have.

I agree here, and I would also add that at least from my own perspective, I don’t think that cognitive behavioral practice necessarily requires a rejection of soul or spirit, at least not in any method that isn’t egoistically dogmatic. I think it’s possible to view some types of problems as best solved through a cognitive behavioralist model while still accepting that there are other elements of life and behavior. I’d add the medical model into that as well. I might, for instance, feel strongly that a patient’s deep depression has an emotional basis and is not simply a matter of brain chemistry imbalance. If, however, she’s retreated into a nearly wholly non-interactive state in which I can’t even speak to her, medication might help push her back into conscious interaction sufficiently that we can start to get at the issues involved. I’m not so much a proponent of any one theory as a proponent of keeping the whole toolbox open; I think that there’s enough interaction between the various elements of mind and body, spirit and psyche, disease and desire, that it’s worth considering all of them – and especially considering that sometimes the same presenting behaviors may, in two different individuals, be constructed from different roots.

It seems to me that its important to differentiate between pratictioners, praxis and theory. I am of the position that psychological theories do have inherent qualities and exclusions, but that practitioners may or may not hold to the particular source and agenda of a given theory. Thus, there can be a souless and mechanistic practioner of depth psychology and a deeply soulful practitioner of Skinner's or Pavlov's behaviorism.

I agree that no tool is without vlaue. I do believe that psyche is better served (serving psyche being the primary aim of depth psychology) according to the depth of soul of the practitioner. I do understand that such an "idea" is inherently resistant to empirical measurment and reductive deifintion (as is Soul/Psyche).

In the practice of depth psychology as you describe it, I am perhaps am enough of a cranky old empiricist to have a few reservations. Cultivating the soul is a noble goal, but the cynic within me observes that it appears to be a non-measurable goal.

Reservations noted. I happen to thoroughly enjoy and respect soulful cranky old empiricists...and cynics. You, Shang, in my judgement, are a genuinely soulful man, particularly considering that idiosyncracy and particularity are inherent qualities of soulfuness.

When one is attempting to help someone his to cultivate his/her soul, how does one know how one should do it, if one is doing it, or if one is doing it correctly? I do not, to be clear, wish to go down the path of assuming that that which cannot be measured has no value. However, I question how one knows that one person is suited to guide another when results appear by their nature unlikely to be measured. What keeps this from turning into “teaching people to live their lives as I live mine”?

There is a very interesting book called Power In the Helping Professions, by Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig, that addresses your very question from a perspective of soul.

I stand with Jung when he says that his job is not to teach another to be Jungian, or about jungian psychology, but to guide, in the character of psychopomp, or in a Virgil-like way, another person through the journey of soul that often starts with psychopatholgy, to discover one's own psychology. Only Jung can properly be a Jungian, only Skinner a Skinnerian, and only Shang a Shangist. Jung also said that we cannot help another unless we are willing to trip and fall into their neurosis with them. We must find the qualitaties inherent in the problem and, like the alchemical maxim of like curing like, or, considering that from the venom we get the antidote or cure, we look to the stuck image of soul in question that is causing the pathology, ask it what it wants, and help it to move again so that it can have it's own life back and not cause us meaningless problems and suffering because it has been neglected and denied.

To do this work, one must be commit to being guided by soul and not by ego. One keeps track of this by doing one's own soul work as a life practice and constantly navigating by re-orieneting to the star of the soul. Doing one's own work, having both internal and external guides and mentors, and being part of a soul-oriented community of some kind are some ways this can be accomplished and cultivated. The arts are also a wonderful way to cultivate soul and also to "heal" soul.

A "positive outcome" of this kind of work is not an aim, and, in that it lends itself to measure at all, it lends itself to qualitative and not quantitative measure. The aim of this work is to deliteralize, deconcretize and help to become unstuck the flow of psyche through the engagment of imagination as "treatment," to help oneself or another (or a couple, group, family, community, culture, etc...) to be more true to one's own inherent character and calling, even if iti s painful, uncomfortable, and is counter to ego wants and social acceptance.

I find this a particularly germane question when looking at the comments on the web link about “various sorts of psychological initiations into adulthood--ideally, with the help of wiser and more mature adults--in order to attain […] maturity.” That is, on some levels, an appealing model to me; I like the idea of people finding mentors to guide them through the difficult process of maturing and learning about all aspects of their lives. However, on other levels I question how one judges who has the wisdom and maturity to fulfill this role – because human nature appears, to me, to make it likely that nearly everyone will feel qualified to do so. What prevents this from becoming a system in which bad advice is perpetuated for bad reasons?

What prevents this from becoming what you describe, which is essentially the current state of our western culture, IMHO, is individuals who commit to serving something greater than their ego selves by following their particular and unique calling in the world. That is not easy to measure empirically, but, as has been said of pornography, I know it when I see it.

An ego-focused culture neglects and forgets its rites of passage. There is an interesting book by Robert Bly, called The Sibling Society, in which he charatcerizes our culture as being comprised of adolescent siblings instead of mature men and women. Another book that come sot mind that addresses the sam eissue is by Alexander Mitscherlich and Eric Mosbach called Society Without a Father.

Again, community is a central aspect here. Community can be helpful in judging wether I am coming form my ego or following my greater calling in a particular situation. It seems to me that that's why councils of elders have been so pervasive in many cultures throughout time and place.

I recognize what you’re saying here, and to some extent I agree. However, I think the devil’s in one of these details – the point where you say that you think that we have more in common than we have separating us. This, perhaps, may be true as well, but I doubt whether it means that we can “know” any one individual’s soul, or “know” the archetypal universal soul in a way that allows meaningful application to actual people. I’d suggest that the two great myths of humanity are that we are all really basically the same and that we are all fundamentally and distinctly different. The sins of the latter are perhaps more obvious, as they permit us to “other” differing groups of people to a degree that allows us to reject their basic humanity and the ethical considerations that go with that. But I think the former also problematic in its own way. What concerns me is that at its heart, if one is not careful, one can eventually find “what’s good for me is good for everyone,” and there’s all manner of hell behind those good intentions as well. I don’t think it to be true; I think different people have different spiritual and intellectual needs in the same way that they have different physical needs. I’ve met too many people who would be miserable leading my life to think otherwise, although I think it in many aspects the most pleasurable life imaginable – and, amusingly, the aspects I prize most highly are the ones that others find the most tedious imaginable.

In my judgement, your awareness that we all have different star to follow would make you an ideal mentor and guide.

And it is another step altogether to entertain and accept that we can see and feel into another persons heart and soul, and that we all share the same heart and soul and the barriers we construct between oursleves are illusionary. Such an ecstatic step is outisde our cultural paradigm at this point, I think, which makes me an arrogant crackpot in the eyes of most when I offer the concept.

I think I’m with Dr. M. on rejecting the “hydraulic” model of repression leading to more explosive enactment; otherwise no desire could ever be checked in any way, which seems to be empirically a difficult stance to maintain. However, I do see where you’re going with the idea of how to manage such images culturally, and I agree that the message “you’re never allowed to have that thought” is much more difficult to work with than the message “this thought can and should be contextualized in this manner.” Certainly I agree with you on the essentially Freudian principle that incestuous and pedophilic desire are problems not because they are unnatural but because they are essentially naturally-arising impulses that we must be taught to censor rather than desires only occurring in pathological states, and that the mechanism by which we censor them is an important area for investigation.

"Hydraulic" metaphor or not, I agree that censor is a useful tool.

All of this is quite true, and I agree that it has problems in it. However, non-empirical models also have problems, notably the issue of how any person or method can be determined to be effective or worth heeding. I think there is this, too, in the treatment of sex offenders; beyond the monetary demands for an empirical model, there is immense pressure from – I would argue justified – concern about the behavior of persons who fail to restrain these desires. There are very grave empirical effects, and so I think it not wholly unreasonable to ask for some proof that the behavior is being reduced.

I agree wholeheartedly. A system of accountability would need to be worked out in the context of the community in question by taking many factors into account.

I believe the problem of this gets harder to address and resolve as soon as it moves outisde of the face-to-face community context and into larger collective contexts (i.e., county, state, nation). I'm a big fan of face-to-face intentional community as the best and largest social construction in which these issues can be addressed. It would be a whole different thread, I think.

While not a great fan of the “hydraulic” metaphor (for which term I thank Dr. M.), I do agree that repression alone is not enough. However, I think that repression of actions – and I include obsessive, deliberate, pleasure-driven fantisization as an action – has a role to play while those deeper issues are being worked upon. I think it is important at times to check the thought and remind oneself that it leads to an inappropriate actions and should not be indulged. Investigated, yes; examined, yes; indulged and petted, no. That said, I think that going the other way around – repression without examination, as opposed to examination without repression – is also a problem; as you state, if that decision is never integrated into a fuller idea of the spirit and mind and how they have arrived at that desire in the first place, it’s not likely to be a lasting cure.

Agreed.

Possibly, however, we differ here; I do accept a model that allows for some behaviors, in some persons, to be biologically determined. In such cases, one faces the most difficult of obstacles, as no amount of therapy is likely to help if a desire is chemically mandated.

I do feel that it is just as valid to address the physical symptoms or expressions of any pathology, and that sometimes that path is the most effective and even the most soulful. And, again, a physician of any specialty can have the same or greater depth of soul than one who claims soul as his or her primary province.

But I’m curious about your comments on social congruency and morality. I’m not wholly sure I’m interpreting it correctly. On the one hand, when you discuss corporations, it seems to me that you mean “making things look socially acceptable when in reality they may be harmful.” On the other hand, I don’t see that that works well on the topic of sex with children, as this is physically as well as emotionally harmful and I don’t think can be read simply as “only a problem because we don’t like it socially.”

I would argue that there are and have been times and places in which sex with children was not physically, emotionally, psychologically or developmentally harmful. We do not live in or near one of those times or places, and I do not advocate sex with children in any way shape or form. Due to many factors, sex with and between children in our primary cultural context can be deeply destructive to all involved, not to mention that, as it stands, it is illegal in the vast majority of contemporay western culture, and should remain so. Before any treatment can begin for pedophiles they must be abstinent from acting out their proclivity.

Here’s where I would like to hear more. I can see that catharsis could be a tool in the process of treatment, but I would like to know where it goes from there. My own qualms come not from the acknowledgement of the desire itself, or even discussing it or depicting it symbolically, but from the uncritical repetition of such depictions, which seems to me merely a means of practicing or re-ifying the desire likely to increase the wish to act upon it. I see what you mean about a cathartic process in which one does acknowledge and face this desire and discuss it in ways that can help open up new avenues of dealing with it. My question is, what would those avenues be? What is the next step after catharsis?

If catharsis doesn't lead to deeper insight into the psychological dynamic of the problem and its external triggers, then there can be no resolution of the problem on a psychological level. In that case, society has a responsibility to keep the individual from hurting anyone else by whatver means necessary.

I believe a given psychopathology wants something other than it is getting when it is acted out without insight or conscious awareness. Catharthis alone is akin to, but one step behind, Freud's defense mechanism of sublimation, which, is actually the highest order of functioning in the Freudian world. If we could help pedophiles learn to sublimate their desire into something less destructive and mor euseful to sociey, that would be better than what we are doing. But I envision taking it a step beyond that.

I think all pathology, including pedophilia, really wants our growth, healing and ultimate wholeness, not our pain, suffering and destruction. I think pedophilia as a pathology and collective cultural phenomenon, differentiated from the people that suffer from it, wants our culture to become more aware of and acknowledge the inherent sexuality of being human from conception through death. And, on a deeper level, I think pedophilia wants us to reclaim and redeem the erotic nature of life and to find a way to redeem the innocence of eros without literalizing eros into only sex, and, particulalrly, into sex with children (childhood and youth being the literalization of innocence). I think pedophiles are the unwilling and reviled ambassadors and messengers of eros in this way, just as I think psychotics are the unwilling and reviled ambassadors and messengers of the reality and phenomenon of the unconscious herself, and depressives are the unwilling ambassadors and messengers of an externally-focused, superficial and manic society that needs to slow down and reflect inward.

Do you have any thoughts about what to do with and about pedophiles and pedophilia?

Thanks for the most interesting explanation, and I hope that I haven’t asked so many questions and made so many objections as to wholly irritate you.

Irritation compels clams to make pearls. Thank you for offering me the chance to examine my own ideas, and for the joy of the dialogue.

S&D

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I am personally very skeptical of too much collectivism and trust in the "community". Mass hysteria is all too real, as demonstrated by the ostracism of Themistocles and the execution of Socrates. And oligarchies are often little better. The USSR was such an oligarchy, doomed to collapse by its own unwieldiness. Balance requires having a larger group, restrained by a smaller group, and an individual to execute those decisions. Above all must be respect for the individual as the purpose of any group's existence in the first place.

Social authority is something to be restrained, if not revolutionized altogether.

As for our society needing to slow down, perhaps in some ways, though not generally. And I will NEVER find anything erotic (by definition sexual, as in its original Greek sense) in kids, no matter what anyone claims. I respectfully disagree with S and D's views. I also don't see truth in hallucinations. They are self-deception, nothing more.

 

[Sex and Death]

I am personally very skeptical of too much collectivism and trust in the "community". Mass hysteria is all too real, as demonstrated by the ostracism of Themistocles and the execution of Socrates.

"If you are going to tell the truth, keep a horse by the door." ~African Proverb

And oligarchies are often little better. The USSR was such an oligarchy, doomed to collapse by its own unwieldiness. Balance requires having a larger group, restrained by a smaller group, and an individual to execute those decisions. Above all must be respect for the individual as the purpose of any group's existence in the first place.

Social authority is something to be restrained, if not revolutionized altogether.

As for our society needing to slow down, perhaps in some ways, though not generally. And I will NEVER find anything erotic (by definition sexual, as in its original Greek sense) in kids, no matter what anyone claims. I respectfully disagree with S and D's views.

Interesting comments, Sev, as usual. Any thoughts on how they might apply to dealing with pedophilia and pedophiles?

The Greeks did not primarily mean "sexual" when they referred to eros, or the god, Eros. Sex, to the Greeks, was one arena for the expression of the energy of eros which brings and binds life together into ectstatic union. It had a spiritual thrust, so to speak, and sex was only one expression of and arena for that. Read stories of the god, Eros, and they will show that there is much more going on with Eros and eros than sex.

The eros of life, in any stage or at any age, doesn't need to have anything to do with sex to be erotic, yet sexuality is a part of all life and its forms, no matter the age or stage, including children.

Of course, our lens of perception determines how we experience what we are seeing, too. I find a metaphoric and poetic lens more useful than a literal one, which says something about my way of seeing. That is the primary lens through which I perceive psychopathology in all its expressions, including pedohilia.

I also don't see truth in hallucinations. They are self-deception, nothing more.

If you don't see the truth in hallucinations, than perhaps you don't see the hallucinations in truth, either.

Rugged individualists tend to rely primarily on ego strength and strength of will to function and "progress" in life. Those people can be glorious, heroic and tragic. Personally, after having climbed that mountain many times in my life, I can now say I have never seen a man or woman do anything stronger than to surrender to whatever they feel is greater than his or herself.

As Jung said, there are gods in our diseases, bidden or unbidden, and they will get their due one way or another. I have learned that heroically conquering life can be fun, valuable and valid, and necessary for a certain age/stage of life, but I have come to a place where that no longer works for me, and I tend now to focus on aligning myself rightly and properly in the world and universe. When we disregard pedophilia, or any pathology, out of hand, or when we attempt to destroy or conquer it by sheer strength of will, we miss what it is trying to tell us in the service of our growth and the growth of the world.

I do not feel the group, community, collective or world is here to serve me. I feel I am here to serve it all. I do not always succeed in remembering or acting from my best and deepest intention, though.

This poem by Rilke sums it up for me: being defeated, decisivley, by constantly greater beings (and it presents the posture I feel it would be best to cultivate for any of us when we are suffering from a pathology or treating someone who is):

The Man Watching

by Rainer Maria Rilke

I can tell by the way the trees beat, after
so many dull days, on my worried windowpanes
that a storm is coming,
and I hear the far-off fields say things
I can't bear without a friend,
I can't love without a sister

The storm, the shifter of shapes, drives on
across the woods and across time,
and the world looks as if it had no age:
the landscape like a line in the psalm book,
is seriousness and weight and eternity.

What we choose to fight is so tiny!
What fights us is so great!
If only we would let ourselves be dominated
as things do by some immense storm,
we would become strong too, and not need names.

When we win it's with small things,
and the triumph itself makes us small.
What is extraordinary and eternal
does not want to be bent by us.
I mean the Angel who appeared
to the wrestlers of the Old Testament:
when the wrestler's sinews
grew long like metal strings,
he felt them under his fingers
like chords of deep music.

Whoever was beaten by this Angel
(who often simply declined the fight)
went away proud and strengthened
and great from that harsh hand,
that kneaded him as if to change his shape.
Winning does not tempt that man.
This is how he grows: by being defeated, decisively,
by constantly greater beings.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, we clearly will never agree, but we can respect each other. My view is that one must resist servility and submission to the herd, if we are to be what Nietzsche called the "Overman". Of course, if you want to be part of the herd and believe that you exist for its sake, that is your right.

And my approach to dealing with pedophiles is to recognize them for people who cannot function within even my libertarian, individualist society. I believe in the rights of people to do anything that doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Pedophiles DO interfere with the rights of others- not to be manipulated or molested.

I cannot and never will be anything but a man committed to individuality, justice, and the ordo Natura. I am a pagan. My beliefs precede all of the existing moralities on Earth and continue to be valid. I accept tragedy as a necessary sacrifice for heroism and the heroic individual. Like the Roman senators Brutus and Cassius, my motto will always be "Sic Semper Tyrannis".

 

[Sex and Death]

Well, we clearly will never agree, but we can respect each other. My view is that one must resist servility and submission to the herd, if we are to be what Nietzsche called the "Overman". Of course, if you want to be part of the herd and believe that you exist for its sake, that is your right.

And my approach to dealing with pedophiles is to recognize them for people who cannot function within even my libertarian, individualist society. I believe in the rights of people to do anything that doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Pedophiles DO interfere with the rights of others- not to be manipulated or molested.

I cannot and never will be anything but a man committed to individuality, justice, and the ordo Natura. I am a pagan. My beliefs precede all of the existing moralities on Earth and continue to be valid. I accept tragedy as a necessary sacrifice for heroism and the heroic individual. Like the Roman senators Brutus and Cassius, my motto will always be "Sic Semper Tyrannis".

Actually, I think we agree on some fundamental things, liberty being the primary one. I just think we are fondling different exteremities of the elephant. I have never been accused of being one of the herd (elephant or otherwise), and don't imagine I will be accused of such in this lifetime. And slavery, servility and submission to anything other than the god of my understanding is kinda funny to even think about to me (I enjoy topping, and topping from the bottom, but submission is a very foreign concept to me). I don't fear losing myself in the herd, though, and I draw my boundaries clearly when I want or need to, which allows me to serve the herd from within or without. I don't see life as primarily a polar conflict between the individual and the group.

Aside from agreement or disagreement, I also respect and enjoy your posts and personality, and I spend a fair share of my time in pagan and other more alternative cirlces. I respect the natural order and feel that the laws of the jungle alway apply in life: somethinn's gotta' die for somethin' else to live, and the big fish eat the little fish. I'm usually on top of the food chain, but I have encountered bigger fish than me, and I also know that I'm not gettin' outta here alive. None of us escape that big fish.

Psychologically, I am essentially a polytheist, and see our psychopathologies as gods and godesses that are greater and mor eprimal than us and who want us to
give them their due. Pedophilia ha sbeen here a slong as humans have been here, and it will rmeian here long after you and I are gone. Perhaps it will be seen as pathological forever, perhaps not.

What happens when the collective mind decides one or more of your fantasies is a problem and labels it pathological?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, perceived differences often arise from vagueness and generalities.

 

[rgraham666]

The "Overman" theme makes me shiver. All of the 'Great Men' ideas, indeed all the 'Great' ideas, are in my mind simply ways for people to avoid responsibility for their actions.

"I had to do this," the followers tell themselves, "the 'Great' idea I believe in demanded it."

I find it odd, that so many people who talk about liberty, so often claim 'they had no other choice.'

And if I'm going to follow a God, Pallas Athene, the Goddess of Wisdom is mine.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

A truly great man doesn't evade responsibility: he claims it. I am not out to brainwash others. I am out to present them with another view, one that may liberate and enlighten them. Being pagan, I accept all gods. Athena is one of many that I worship.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Being pagan, I accept all gods. Athena is one of many that I worship.

um.. she would be of the godDESS variety?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

um.. she would be of the godDESS variety?

I accept the co-existing divinity of both sexes, considering neither superior to the other. They are both necessary. So, you see, I don't restrict myself to the male deities.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So want to play.

So dead with work.

Reading, and very much enjoying the conversation!

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

I'm currently reading The Anatomy Of Motive. An interesting book written by the guy who used to be head of the FBI's Behavioural Sciences Unit.

One thing it put to rest, in my mind, is that middle class white people don't murder as much as the poor and not white. An idea bruted about before on this forum. Most of the people in this book are white, middle class and male.

The one thing that struck me in reading this book is how often the perps are control freaks. Everything in their lives has to go according to plan. And when it doesn't people start dying in order to bring it back under control.

Just finished reading about guys who killed their families and then disappeared. One is still missing and the other was free, and in a new life, for over fifteen years. Chilling.

It also seemed to me that these people have a weak sense of self. Either through bad upbringings, mental or physical problems, they need to make sure nothing ever challenges their sense of themselves. In fact they often build up a huge but shallow ego. When their bubbles bursts, so do they.

Not sure if pedophiles suffer from this problem, but it seems likely.