Pedophiles are hated, in prisons they are often killed, raped and even tortured, people throw hate at them even if they didn’t offend, everything slightly correlated or that even has the slightly possibility of being related to pedophilia is stigmatized, like lolicon. But despite the hate, almost every single time I hear people who were molested by pedophiles, they are either blamed or their family does nothing. What is the psychology behind it? How are pedophiles so hated, but when they actually do something some people seem to give them some slack? Is there something that explains this phenomenon?
I think the term is victim blaming. As to why it happens here are some thoughts.
Since it is such a reprehensible happening people do not want to dwell on it and just want to move on. This can lead to looking for oversimplified and self mollifying explanations such as the victim did something wrong and the negative outcome could have been avoided easily. Possible elements:
Hindsight bias: the victim (child/teen?) should have known what the end result would be. So if they did not avoid it they are somehow complacent or even willing.
“Rape myths”Rape myth - Wikipedia)
a)ex: It is not rape if you do not resist as in “If only the (small ~60 lb) child had resisted the (200+lb) full grown adult she could have gotten away.”
b) Imperfect victim. “If only the (emotionally/physically) starved child did not visit unsupervised the “friendly” neighbor and did not eat/drink the drugged food/juice.”
Just world fallacy: Bad things only happen to bad people.
Lack of information. Victim is by definition underage, so some facts are redacted or avoid the possibility of identifying.
Even if facts are known as long as they do not fit the expected narrative (ex. victim defending the abuser, not immediately reporting the abuse, no physical scars of coercion) the public starts to think it is not real abuse. Also as previously mentioned, people do not usually want to wallow in the (often depressing) details.
They read the sensationalist headline, skim the contents and convince themselves that that could not happen to them and theirs.
The “stranger in the bushes” is the unlikely scenario. Most of the time the perpetrator is know to the victim and they often have established relationships before the abuse/exploitation taking place.
Also in many cases the abuser is a family member, or friend (under fall pretense) or be in position of authority (teacher, community/religious leader) or the victim may have received a benefit(money, clothes, room and board)[which in no way justify them being abused, just makes things appear to be not black and white to casual reader, which does not fit their expectations so the reader conflates facts with made up explanations to fit].
Doubt. The public is expecting the perpetrator of such heinous crime to be a monster in body as well as mind. Also a stranger or at least misanthrope. So if a community member the abuser is known and respected, then allegations do not stick if the victim even reports it. Occasionally I would read story about someone getting caught after decade or more and with tens of victims. How did that happen? Well, they would act altruistic, volunteer, help trouble youths and choose carefully their victims. The flip site is the possibility of false accusation: innocent people getting their lives ruined and get exonerated. So alleged (or even convicted) abusers are given the benefit of the doubt that they are just victims of imperfect judicial system.
Why family do not help? Well, sometimes they are the perpetrators or at least get some benefits. Stereotyping here. Single mother’s new boyfriend is an older guy with a steady job, who threat her right aka is not violent asshole.He might even help her get a job. Also he spends time with the children, buy them presents. So when one kid complains about excessive/ inappropriate touching, the birth parent would be reluctant to leave as there is much to lose. Even if confronted he can make excuses that he just wants to be involved with childcare. Even if caught, the abuser could scare the woman (and child) that if this comes out she would be deemed a bad mother and loose her children to CPS (or local equivalent) . In short family member actions or inaction could be self serving.
There are several parallels to sex trafficking of minors.
Take for example: the Lover boy approach ("Loverboy" and "Romeo Pimp" - Greenlight Operation)
“He comes in the winter, compassion and trust.
He dances in spring with your love and your lust.
He calls in the summer and answer you must.
He withers in winter, you save him from dust.”
In essence: approach a lonely child, often with a troubled family life. Offer help and affirmation while building a bond.
Manipulate the victim into doing your biding to the point of them self blaming (“this is what I deserve”) or even defending their abuser. The latter especially in cases of survival sex.
You may also want to read on “battered person syndrome” as one explanation of why people stay in abusive relationships.
A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester. A child molester is not always a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. A child molester may mistreat children for other reasons than sex, such as power or control. However, the public often believes they are the same.
There is a natural instinct to protect children. Hating those who mistreat children is easy. Understanding that a sexual attraction to children doesn’t mean a pedophile will harm them, is difficult.
I know all of that. What I am asking is why is child molestation often enabled (specially by family) while the ones who People assume to hurt children (pedophiles) are so hated and child molesters are also so hated?
The public has second hand, selective exposure. That is to say most people had not experienced that kind of victimization. Therefore, what they know is from curated sources. For a crime to make the headlines (or be published at all) it often has to have be strong evidence (libel laws) and involve a famous person or be especially heinous. Sex with the underage is consider by many to be the latter. Likewise, research on pedophilia (here used to indicate attraction with underage person) is predominantly done in the past with convicted offenders, and even then as previously stated sometimes conflation all child molesters. (as an aside not all crime is reported and most reported crime is not resolved ref: Crime in the U.S.: Key questions answered | Pew Research Center)
Take the case of Lina Medina. Youngest confirmed mother. If a 15 year old becomes pregnant from her 19 year old boyfriend that is still a crime (technically Ephebophilia but in the end sex with person bellow the age of consent), but likely not elicit the same visceral response from the public as 5 year old giving birth. Likewise 24 year old female teacher seducing a 16 year old male student is often not viewed the same as if the genders were reversed (or same).
Next lets look at personal connection/involvement vs stranger.
Let me ask (general) you which of the following will you report if it was done by a a) family member b) (close) friend c) stranger
From among those crimes:
1)Jaywalking
2)Using drugs
3)Selling drugs
4)Murder
Was your answer all in all cases? If not, why? Is it that you have something to lose? A relationship? A resource provider? The time that it takes to report it?
In my previous post I spoke of (theoretical case) a mother, whose child is molested and that if she is to report the abuse at the very least she would loose the monetary support of the perpetrator. She could also risk to lose custody of her children. And it becomes known she will probably loose reputation and have damaged self image. And almost nobody want to think that they are a bad person.
Add to that successful perpetrators learn to manipulate their victims. If one do not immediately report a crime one has witness to that creates stress and the individual is likely to engage in cognitive dissonance reduction. (“It is not that bad.” “He promised he would stop doing that.” “Kids make up stories all the time.” etc.)
And that is only addressing the supposedly responsible adults. The victim itself, especially given their younger age and therefore inexperience are usually even easier to manipulate. Also there is usually already established divide between what we share with others and what stays in the family. So if a kid is told : It is a secret! He or she is apt to keep it. ( the vibe in Pat Benatar – Hell Is for Children Lyrics | Genius Lyrics)
Jaywalking and drugs are victimless crimes. Assuming only adults are involved, and no one is forced, I believe in a person’s right to live his/her life their own way. If you want to harm yourself, that is your choice. Murder, is however, harming someone else. Not acceptable.
That being said, I speak from experience. When my wife got up the courage to accuse her father of sexual misconduct, most of her family just couldn’t believe it. It was too far outside of their experience, and they simply rejected the idea. “He was such a good provider, never got drunk and never beat his wife.” He did however, beat his daughter and her brothers. It was called “discipline” in those days. I believed her because her story was very consistent and specific. It also explained her ambivalent feelings about her father. I may have been a bit biased, but her story made sense.
Of course, during the 80’s, there were a number of high-profile cases that attracted a lot of hysterical reporting. When properly investigated, it was found that most of these cases were essentially fabricated by the prosecution from improper interviews with very young children. They can be very suggestable and led to saying things that are ridiculous at face value. But zealous prosecutors pushed the cases anyway.
It was not my intention to suggest those are all equivalent. I was trying to demonstrate that people react differently to infractions when done by strangers vs friends and family members . In particular that the latter are judged less harshly or an attempt to (diminish the severity of/excuse) their bad behavior. One may dislike and judge public intoxication, but if is Uncle Joe- then excuses come out- “He had a hard life/day”. “His wife/pet just died.” Again the incident just may been once-in-a-lifetime thing. But unless one knows the person in question most are quick to judge and do not seek to learn more details.
While many believe in “Darwin Awards”- others think that there is a need for laws (such as against jaywalking) to protect people from themselves. As aside, I do not think people who engage in that are suicidal, just exhibiting a combination of bad at calculating risk and overconfident. It could also be that such laws (if effective deterrent even in small number of cases) can be seen as beneficial to society by limiting the number of vehicle homicide investigations (and potentially negativity impacting non willing participants lives).
May be you are referring to Day-care sex-abuse hysteria - Wikipedia ? It is interesting read, as it shows why sometimes young children testimony may not be the truth, even if the child is not intending to lie. The flip side of suggestibility is that a child may be repressing the memory of the abuse. All of this creates a difficult situation for persecution, as key witnesses may be unwilling or unable to disclose. Therefore a perpetrator may get away with abuse for a long time. So when a case gets into the public view it is often either a systematic multi-year abuse with many victims (single one or few concurrency if that makes sense) or very horribly shocking such as when the victim(s) was kidnapped, brutally abused and murdered.
That wasn’t what I meant. I mean that I do not like the government telling me what I can or cannot do, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. I do not approve of “nanny” regulations.
