Harvey Weinstein resigns in sexual harrassment scandal

Celia Cyanide said:

Then what IS it about? I don't understand why it makes any difference if someone calls a child molester a pedophile.

Click to expand...

I have a problem with it because it can perpetuate the idea of a "boogeyman." It actually places more emphasis on motive, in my opinion, because it puts the attention on the idea that "sickos" are the ones who target children.

In reality, sometimes young people are targeted by abusers who don't fit the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. And some abuse isn't pedophilia by definition (if the victim isn't prepubescent). A lot of children are abused by people who appear to be perfectly capable of experiencing attraction to adults, and who live "normal" lives. There's not one type of child molester any more than there's one type of domestic abuser.

I'm also 100% against sex offender registries. They're useless at best and actively harmful at worst. People have been put on them, or threatened with being put in them, for everything from peeing in public to sharing nude photos of themselves as a teen to inappropriate childhood sexual behavior that doesn't usually lead to lifelong offending. The idea behind registries is that sex offenders are a lifelong danger, which is a direct consequence of treating sex crimes and paraphilias as synonymous. Pedophiles have a condition that's very difficult to overcome, but not all sex offenders (even ones guilty of crimes that are actually serious, like rape) are habitual, compulsive predators. You might as well have a registry of drug dealers or robbers.

A former Weinstein assistant has broken her NDA.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-breaks-nda-details-history-cover-ups-1051258

Zelda Perkins, who worked for Weinstein during his tenure running Miramax Films, has just answered all three in a bombshell of an interview with Financial Times. In doing so, Perkins becomes the first former staffer to come forward and publicly denounce an NDA, shedding light on how Weinstein relied on a network of lawyers to help prevent staffers from speaking out about his alleged bad behavior. She also claims that there were clauses in her contract that could have led to Weinstein's dismissal nearly two decades ago.

Click to expand...

The FT link is behind a paywall.

DancingMaenid said:

In reality, sometimes young people are targeted by abusers who don't fit the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

Click to expand...

And most people don't even know what the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia is. So what are they allowed to call it?

The majority of child abusers aren't pedophiles and the majority of abused kids are not abused by pedophiles.

The recidivism rate for sex crimes is wide ranging -- many classes of offenders have a low recidivism rate. Locking them up forever is folly as a goal -- it's not possible, practical or anything else.

When people cannot differentiate, we get public sex offender registries, and civil commitment programs that lock up everyone they can and don't let them out -- as demonstrated by the links in my previous post.

Celia Cyanide said:

And most people don't even know what the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia is. So what are they allowed to call it?

Click to expand...

Abuse. Rape. Harassment. Exploitation. I think those are all good terms that get at the nature of the crime, rather than the assumed nature of the perpetrator. The problem, I think, isn't just that people don't know the details of sexual pathologies but that it's really hard for people to accept that "regular" people can be sexual predators or, if not habitual predators, capable of that sort of cruelty or entitlement.

I'll also say that, as someone who was sexually harassed as a teenager, the emphasis on pedophilia made it harder for me not to blame myself for what happened. It was really obvious to me that a middle-aged man being interested in 17-year-old me wasn't pedophilia, but it was also clear that the man in question was trying to exploit me because of my age, and made a habit of doing this with teenagers. I felt like the only options were 1) I was innocent in it because I was a kid with no sexual agency at all (not true considering I was nearly an adult at the time and had been attracted to this guy before he turned out to be a creep) or 2) I was nearly an adult, so I should have been fine with how I was treated. And even today, I sometimes see people present this in a very black-and-white way where if something isn't pedophilia, then it's automatically not exploitative or creepy.

Celia Cyanide said:

And most people don't even know what the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia is. So what are they allowed to call it?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a question of what people are allowed to call it. As I understand it, someone who has abused a child is a child abuser. Someone who is sexually attracted to young children is a pedophile. A pedophile may not have acted on the attraction - might have spent a life fighting it. So - he (usually he) won't be a child molester or a child abuser.

On the other hand, a man who is not attracted to children sexually may well abuse children sexually for non-sexual reasons, generally to do with power and just being generally vile.

(There must be links to this, because it's been well reported in places like Huffpo and Slate and NYTimes - like, often enough that I've read it. So it's pretty mainstream info. I could find the links, but - I just want to avoid keying pedophile into my search engine.)

DancingMaenid said:

And even today, I sometimes see people present this in a very black-and-white way where if something isn't pedophilia, then it's automatically not exploitative or creepy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do think people think that. However, I don't believe that people think that way because the term "pedophilia" is overused.

mccardey said:

I don't think it's a question of what people are allowed to call it. As I understand it, someone who has abused a child is a child abuser. Someone who is sexually attracted to young children is a pedophile. A pedophile may not have acted on the attraction - might have spent a life fighting it. So - he (usually he) won't be a child molester or a child abuser.

On the other hand, a man who is not attracted to children sexually may well abuse children sexually for non-sexual reasons, generally to do with power and just being generally vile.

(There must be links to this, because it's been well reported in places like Huffpo and Slate and NYTimes - like, often enough that I've read it. So it's pretty mainstream info. I could find the links, but - I just want to avoid keying pedophile into my search engine.)

Click to expand...

When I was 5, I was sexually assaulted by a male babysitter. When people say that he "wasn't a pedophile," I don't understand why they feel the need to make the distinction. It doesn't make me feel any better. It doesn't make what he did any less predatory and creepy, and it doesn't make it any less traumatic for me. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to normalize it.

Celia Cyanide said:

When I was 5, I was sexually assaulted by a male babysitter. When people say that he "wasn't a pedophile," I don't understand why they feel the need to make the distinction. It doesn't make me feel any better. It doesn't make what he did any less predatory and creepy, and it doesn't make it any less traumatic for me. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to normalize it.

Click to expand...

Because he didn't molest you because he was a pedophile.

He did that because he was a shit. Pedophilia applied to sexual molesters offers a psychologically excuse for their behavior, which is inexcusable. It implies that sexual molestation and rape were somehow "not their fault." That it was because they were psychologically ill.

Pedophiles are not forced to molest children; those who are also child molesters deliberately choose to satisfy their sexual desires.

Wanting sex is not an excuse for rape, neither is pedophilia. It's a crime in both cases by someone who chose to commit it. There isn't any excuse.

Your abuser was / is horrible, and a criminal, and I'm sorry that happened to you.

Neither Weinstein, or Bill Cosby were driven to sexually accost and rape women because of their desire; they did it because they are horrible people.

AW Admin said:

Because he didn't molest you because he was a pedophile.

He did that because he was a shit. Pedophilia applied to sexual molesters offers a psychologically excuse for their behavior, which is inexcusable. It implies that sexual molestation and rape were somehow "not their fault." That it was because they were psychologically ill.

Click to expand...

Not really. Society hates pedophiles, and believes them to be monsters. I don't believe that anyone thinks that sexually abusing children is less bad because the person who did it was a pedophile. I don't really care why that guy sexually assaulted me. I care that he did it.

I don't know that I've ever heard pedophilia offered as an excuse*--that's simply a diagnosis that may or may not fit.

And Celia is quite right--from the victims perspective, it hardly matters why. If someone is cutting my leg off with a chain saw, it might be because they're psychotic, because they're antisocial, because they're drunk, because they're delusional--who k nows? And from that perspective, who cares? It hurts, it needs to stop and it will do considerable damage.

The why is important when we think about treatment which is most definitely linked to public safety, although people tend not to think about it that way (spending money on sex offenders is not a big seller) Again, it's not an excuse, as much as an explanation which will/should guide intervention. Is the issue substance related? Is it part of a personality disorder? Is there an organic issue (brain tumor)? Is there psychosis? That's why evaluations are critical** and specifics are our friend. These days, I think, we're beginning to see so much behavior linked to neuropsych issues it makes the concept of "choice" very murky. I think it will grow murkier.

But no, those discussions/explanations don't mitigate the very real damage these behaviors inflict

* perhaps by offenders but they are (one hopes) redirected towards a more empowered perspective!

** by psychologists specifically trained in this particular branch of forensics

There's a movement - quiet, for the most part - to help pedophiles get treatment and counseling to maintain control of their desire. It's extremely difficult for them to do so because of the mandatory reporting laws in place everywhere. I've got a blog post I wrote last year about the issue. It's not a simple discussion.

Celia Cyanide said:

When I was 5, I was sexually assaulted by a male babysitter. When people say that he "wasn't a pedophile," I don't understand why they feel the need to make the distinction. It doesn't make me feel any better. It doesn't make what he did any less predatory and creepy, and it doesn't make it any less traumatic for me. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to normalize it.

Click to expand...

The thing is, I don't think sexual abuse should be normalized, but it should be acknowledged that it's not an anomaly. Framing it as something people do because they're pedophiles, or because they have another sexual disorder, removes it from a societal and community context, and I think it takes responsibility off the shoulders of people who possibly could have done more.

I feel like it places more, not less, emphasis on motivation in a way that isn't helpful. There's something wrong when a crime committed by a pedophile is seen as evil but other crimes are committed by "good men" who "made a mistake." The specifics of an offender's psychology can play a role in things like sentencing and parole from a public safety standpoint, but doesn't necessarily make the crime more or less traumatic for the victim.

I'm sorry that happened to you. But for some people, like me, making that distinction is vital for accepting things that have happened to us.

Celia Cyanide said:

When I was 5, I was sexually assaulted by a male babysitter. When people say that he "wasn't a pedophile," I don't understand why they feel the need to make the distinction. It doesn't make me feel any better. It doesn't make what he did any less predatory and creepy, and it doesn't make it any less traumatic for me. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to normalize it.

Click to expand...

I have no idea if your abuser was or was not a pedophile but his pathology and motivation are important to helping fewer children be abused.

Someone who abuses a child may be a predator who could rack up literally hundreds of victims or someone who abuses one child and doesn't pose much of a danger of reoffending. Some abusers are only ever stopped through perpetual removal from society or chemical means, some are stopped through therapy and the shock/reality of being locked up for a period of time.

When we fail to make distinctions between these types of people, when people say 'child molesters all need to be locked up for life (which isn't possible or practical),' and refuse to acknowledge the reality and that we need to make the distinctions, they all end up released, and the really dangerous ones end up reoffending, and the ones who weren't dangerous end up on sex offender registries, chased out of town, and prone to more criminal activity, including sex offenses, because they've got nothing left.

Someone like Weinstein, who appears to be an unmitigated, unstoppable serial rapist and abuser, needs to be locked up.

And Weinstein isn't a pedophile, so what does that have to do with anything?

It's the topic of the thread, and the original point of the derail was that people equate sex offender with child molester with pedophile with perpetual danger. This is the problem. I guarantee if anyone under like 20 comes out and says Weinstein did anything to her, someone will call him a pedophile.

cornflake said:

I have no idea if your abuser was or was not a pedophile but his pathology and motivation are important to helping fewer children be abused.

Someone who abuses a child may be a predator who could rack up literally hundreds of victims or someone who abuses one child and doesn't pose much of a danger of reoffending. Some abusers are only ever stopped through perpetual removal from society or chemical means, some are stopped through therapy and the shock/reality of being locked up for a period of time.

When we fail to make distinctions between these types of people, when people say 'child molesters all need to be locked up for life (which isn't possible or practical),' and refuse to acknowledge the reality and that we need to make the distinctions, they all end up released, and the really dangerous ones end up reoffending, and the ones who weren't dangerous end up on sex offender registries, chased out of town, and prone to more criminal activity, including sex offenses, because they've got nothing left.

Someone like Weinstein, who appears to be an unmitigated, unstoppable serial rapist and abuser, needs to be locked up.

Click to expand...

Yes to all of this! Diagnosis and classification of offenders is critical, as is research into effective intervention. AND we have to ensure victims also get fast, effective and easily available treatment for victims, who are unlikely to be terribly concerned with the nuances of assessment.

So, to AW Admin's example, that guy sounds like he'd be a level I, not predatory at all, no history of sex crimes, no use of violence, etc. He'd have to appear every year for some period of time (used to be 10 years, don't know wha t it is now)and have a clean record. Likely low risk of re-offense. A Level II offender -- > higher risk, history of other crimes, drug and alcohol use, may have many victims. Might do okay in treatment program. And a Level III is the highest level with a high chance of re-offense --past crimes, violent, predatory, likely failed treatment programs. They register for life. And there is lots and lots and lots of variation within levels!

And treatment is far more effective than registries, but people love registries. For all t he reasons Cornflake enumerated, they don't keep us safer, though. In fact, these known folks, w ho are on supervision and participating in some kind of treatment are not the ones that pose the greatest threat. The greatest threat is from those who are undiagnosed, not in the system, still out there, doing their thing.

And YES YES YES to Cmhbob's terrific post on treatment for those who feel the urge but haven't acted on it. What are they to do? Who can they talk to? Help must be available (for public safety as much as for compassion)

cornflake said:

It's the topic of the thread, and the original point of the derail was that people equate sex offender with child molester with pedophile with perpetual danger. This is the problem. I guarantee if anyone under like 20 comes out and says Weinstein did anything to her, someone will call him a pedophile.

Click to expand...

https://conservativetribune.com/child-allegation-against-weinstein/

It's like you're clairvoyant or something! Damn, you're good!

Celia Cyanide said:

When I was 5, I was sexually assaulted by a male babysitter. When people say that he "wasn't a pedophile," I don't understand why they feel the need to make the distinction. It doesn't make me feel any better. It doesn't make what he did any less predatory and creepy, and it doesn't make it any less traumatic for me. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to normalize it.

Click to expand...

I'm very sorry that happened, Celia.

I remember a time when crimes against children happened very much in secret and were never discussed in public. I think then, the word pedophile was assumed to carry meanings it didn't necessarily have, and some of those meanings worked against the safety of children. A pedophile might have been generally seen as a leering evil man in an overcoat, overcome by sexual desire - but that didn't help the children who were fighting in secrecy against older male relatives, or baby-sitters or that nice young man down the road with the lovely girlfriend.

It might help to remember that the word pedophile doesn't necessarily convey the evil of the act. Naming the act is important, and naming the actor in terms of the act they committed, doubly so.

I don't know if that helps, but I hope it does.

ETA: And I see everyone else already said that. Sorry, people - I posted without finishing the thread.

bombergirl69 said:

https://conservativetribune.com/child-allegation-against-weinstein/

It's like you're clairvoyant or something! Damn, you're good!

Click to expand...

Wow.

cornflake said:

It's the topic of the thread, and the original point of the derail was that people equate sex offender with child molester with pedophile with perpetual danger. This is the problem. I guarantee if anyone under like 20 comes out and says Weinstein did anything to her, someone will call him a pedophile.

Click to expand...

How about we just use the phrase "coercive predatory sexist pig"? That should cover the bases pretty well.

caw

I dunno, it's a bit longwinded... and possibly unfair to pigs.

Celia Cyanide said:

Wow.

Click to expand...

What I particularly dislike (beyond the actual story) is making the story political. Anyone paying the tiniest bit of attention to the #Metoo campaign can see it goes far, far, FAR beyond political boundaries. Whether Weinstein is "liberal" or "in Hollywood" is hardly the point, although some seem determined to miss it.

bombergirl69 said:

What I particularly dislike (beyond the actual story) is making the story political. Anyone paying the tiniest bit of attention to the #Metoo campaign can see it goes far, far, FAR beyond political boundaries. Whether Weinstein is "liberal" or "in Hollywood" is hardly the point, although some seem determined to miss it.

Click to expand...

This. It's particularly a glass house for the conservatives, considering the harassment lawsuits against Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes.

I apologize for the derail about pedophiles. I was responding specifically about the pastor who was charged with felonies against minors and made the leap. The discussion was interesting and informative though. It does seem like the registries now catch up so many people it becomes impossible to identify the predators who pose the most danger - who also tend to be those who didn't get caught.

CWatts said:

This. It's particularly a glass house for the conservatives, considering the harassment lawsuits against Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes.

I apologize for the derail about pedophiles. I was responding specifically about the pastor who was charged with felonies against minors and made the leap. The discussion was interesting and informative though. It does seem like the registries now catch up so many people it becomes impossible to identify the predators who pose the most danger - who also tend to be those who didn't get caught.

Click to expand...

It's not just that -- they've never done anything, honestly. I've never heard of a case in which a public registry helped solve or stop a crime (might have happened, but as of a few years ago, pretty sure it had not). Law enforcement could always look for people with prior convictions and there's certainly a case for requiring some offenders to register with law enforcement. Public registries, so people can look up if there's a sex offender in their neighbourhood, do absolutely nothing. People don't understand the differences between types or levels of offenders, as above, the people required to register may or may not pose any danger, and registering may enhance the criminal danger they pose, and it tends to enhance the entire perception of sex offender as this special, horrible class of people, and the crime as a special one that's somehow completely uncontrollable and anyone who commits one has to be locked up forever or will always be dangerous to everyone, especially kids, which just isn't true.

Obviously, it's a terrible thing to sexually assault anyone. There's no registry proposed for people who commit general assaults though, and repeated domestic abusers cause a lot of damage. If you ask people if they want to know if a murderer is living next door, or if someone with 10 DUIs lives down their block, yeah, they do, but they don't, because there's no registry for that.