For our Rights Groups: Paedophilia – a sexual orientation?

Dec 17, 2017 Countryman, Features / Columnists

---

By Dennis Nichols

As a child, I used to hear the term ‘follow-pattern’ often. It was a puerile expression which meant that someone was mimicking you either in mockery, flattery, or to provoke an altercation, and the imitated one would respond with something like “Why you does always follow-pattern me?”

Later on, it was ‘copycat’, especially when it came to aping foreign accents and fashion, usually North American. Dave Martins and The Tradewinds lampooned the practice with a calypso by the same name. But sometimes copy-catting is no laughing matter, for example when a small, ‘unsophisticated’ country like ours feels compelled to embrace behaviour that would have hitherto been considered unacceptable or anti-social here, like some forms of sexual orientation.

This is a follow-up on last week’s sexual abuse article.

I’m no prude, and I don’t endorse homophobia, or discrimination based on sexual identity/preference. In Guyana we’ve witnessed the ridicule, hatred and violence meted out to ‘anti-men’ and others whose dress and mannerisms appear at odds with their physical appearance, and who feel they have a right to live as they desire, once they abide by the law.

Their cause is a just one, even though I don’t care for some practices. And although I don’t endorse same-sex marriage or the repeal of buggery laws, I can live with the knowledge that both could someday be a reality.

Straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual – it is theorized that we are oriented that way from birth, and that’s the crux of the matter. Like I said last week, a topic like this is a vastly complex one and again, I am only scratching the surface – just food for thought.

The way I understand it is that gender identity is a concept of self, defined by an individual based on how the person thinks and feels. It is more or less a choice that may be changed as the person learns more about his or her sexuality.

That person may determine later that he/she is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. At that point a pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction to persons of the opposite, same, or both sexes and genders may emerge.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), that {enduring} pattern is what is known as sexual orientation, “distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).”

Now this is where it gets interesting. Although scientists say they do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation, (It could be an interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences) based on their professional understanding, many seem to favour biological models for its cause, and conclude that such orientation is not a choice, believing that it is established at conception; in short, homosexuals and bisexuals do not choose to be that way – they are born to be who they are. But that of course has been accepted for decades.

Here comes what I call the weird part –It is also their conclusion that paedophilia or paedophilic disorder is a sexual orientation; in other words, like homosexuality, bisexuality and of course heterosexuality, it is not a choice, paedophiles are born that way, therefore they can’t help being romantically or sexually attracted to children, even though the condition may be treated – to an extent.

One implication is that paedophiles are victims of circumstances beyond their control and should not be held culpable for their inclinations.

So, if that conclusion is accepted as valid, can paedophiles conscientiously claim the right to live as they choose, with what researchers call their fantasies, attachments, and longings, so long as they don’t approach children with them – and even if they do?

The researchers point to two kinds of paedophiles – those who are child molesters, and those who refrain from getting sexually involved with any child for their entire lives. But if they feel they were born that way, wouldn’t they all want to claim some of the same rights enjoyed by say, the LGBT community, within the perceived boundaries of the law? And wouldn’t civil and human rights groups feel obliged to defend those rights?

Going further, is it even remotely possible that accused paedophiles on trial can be defended and acquitted based mainly or solely on a defence of sexual orientation? That’s where things seem to be headed. And going further back, some may argue that adult-child sex is as old as the proverbial hills; was practiced and accepted in ancient Greece and Rome, and that not that long ago the legal age of consent in some parts of the world was 12.

In Guyana, girls within certain cultural parameters could be married at 14. Even biblically it can be argued that Mary, Jesus’ mother, conceived him and later wed ‘old’ Joseph around the age of 14 as was the Jewish custom at the time.

But the one that takes the cake may be the argument by Philosophy Professor Stephen Kershnar (according to a 2016 article by Biblical Studies Professor Denny Burk) that paedophilia cannot be considered a mental disorder unless it causes harm resulting from mental dysfunction, that it doesn’t harm the paedophile, and does not necessarily harm a ‘willing’ child. The vague ‘harm’ and ‘willing’ are such broad and loaded terms that I wouldn’t even venture to guess what the professor meant by them.

Wikipedia, however, still cautiously defines it as a psychiatric disorder, and notes that biological factors have not been proved the cause. And over the past few years, many mainstream Christians and right-wing bloggers have claimed that the APA was actually pressured by paedophile activists to declare their ‘interest’ as an orientation, that it accidentally called paedophilia a sexual orientation, and has since made a correction.

In October 2013, the Washington Times carried an article with the headline ‘APA to correct manual: (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM/V) Pedophilia is not a ‘sexual orientation’. However there still appears to be much confusion on the subject.

It would be interesting to hear what our local human and civil rights groups, including SASOD and Guyana Trans United, have to say about the movements and trends in the United States and elsewhere aimed at ‘normalizing’ paedophilia, especially while defending LGBT rights to be protected from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. (As a side note there may or may not have existed a paedophile organization in Alhambra, California, called the Rene Guyon Society, whose motto allegedly was ‘Sex before eight, or it’s too late’) You can explore it on the internet.

In view of the recent horrific cases of child sexual abuse and paedophilia in Guyana, the notions and trends mentioned in this article are at least worthy of consideration by Guyanese; more so by advocacy groups and the government as we seek to preserve the integrity of our ‘most precious assets’ while at the same time ensuring that the fundamental rights of marginalized and fringe groups are protected. It could be a tricky balancing act.

---

---