THE "PARAPHILIAS" --
the
category of sexual "disorders" into which the psychiatric establishment
places "pedophilia"-- are founded upon moral judgments, as even John
Money (the former Johns Hopkins University professor who has been the
concept's biggest recent proponent), has pointed out. However,
the history of the terms and their definitions goes back much further
than Money.
During the Victorian era, forensic psychiatrist Richard von
Krafft-Ebbing wrote one of the first volumes on sexology, called Psychopathia
Sexualis. It became very popular
and a big seller,
published in 12 editions as late as 1939 (my copy was printed in 1945,
from the twelfth edition). It is also reputed to have been
largely plagiarized from his students. I wouldn't be surprised if
half of it were fabricated out of, well, not "thin air," but out of
existing myths. This book introduced the term "paedophilia" into
the "medical" literature. What is most important here is that
each heading in the section containing the discussion of "pedophilia"
began with a number from the German criminal code. For example:
"6. Violations of Individuals Under the Age of 14 (Austrian
Statutes, 128, 132; Austrian Abridgement, 189, 191; German Statutes,
174, 176.)"
In the table of contents, this section was listed as "Immorality with
persons under the age of 14.” Cases of this "violation" are
divided into "Non-Pathological Cases" and "Pathological Cases.”
Among the later are several different kinds of cases, including those
motivated by the "morbid disposition, a psycho-sexual perversion, which
may at present be named paedophilia erotica.” (here there
is a
footnote citing an 1896 article by Krafft-Ebing -- if anyone could find
this article, I would love to have a copy). This is the history
of the word "pedophile," and this is one of the many reasons why I
studiously avoid using the word in my writing.
Today, in the common parlance of the US, the word is almost synonymous
with "psychopath," and is generally understood to apply to someone who
is beyond help, out of control, and a danger, or at least a potential
annoyance, to young people. Notice that I also avoid, where
possible, using the words "child" or "children.” Like the "p"
word, these words are associated with a mythology well suited for
social control. "Children" are helpless and must be protected;
they are incapable of doing wrong, because they can't make their own
decisions, etc.... The Western ideology of childhood, as I
understand it, is rooted primarily in the writings of medieval Church
scholars. The writings were turned into widespread practice after
the rise of industrial capitalism, when the newly powerful "state"
borrowed the ideas and educational techniques and adapted them to
institute compulsory "education"/ indoctrination.
Consistent with the idea that "children" are to be seen and not heard,
is the fact that the "p" word is always defined (officially) to exclude
the will of the young person. Taken together, these two words are
derived from, and lend support to, a very oppressive ideology which
serves to keep young people effectively enslaved in Western countries.
I also have a personal vendetta against the "p" word, having identified
with it at the age of 12, isolating myself from my friends and fearing
my future for the next 15 years. It seems now as if the word were
a ball and chain around my ankle. I have known two boys who tried
to understand me as a "pedophile," and it simply was not possible, for
they could not see themselves, in their mid-teens, as "children.”
To them, I was gay,
and strange. They both liked me a lot, but my own self-image
ultimately presented insurmountable obstacles to our friendship.
I
don't mind being an unusual character, but to be labeled with a word
that has such strong associations in the American mind is a fate
comparable to death for me. My task now is to make up for some 15
years of lost time.
Finally, there is the matter of multi-dimensionality. As others
have observed, there is no reason to organize one's sexuality only
around age or sex. Since moving to San Francisco, I have
discovered that of all the different types of
people, the palest ones (white guys) generally age the fastest, and
usually have the most body hair (as I understand, scientists are just
now figuring out that the substance which colors the skin also inhibits
aging). I have discovered that there are guys over 30, and even
over 40, who make decent sex partners, at least occasionally, if I
only open my mind to what can happen, and worry less about what can't
happen. I have found that some people of color look as good at
22, or better, than many white guys look at any age, and yet, I still
am attracted to people similar to those who turned me on when I was 12.
I have no word to describe this "orientation," but it is very real, and
it is shared, in general terms, by an awful lot of San Francisco's
"gay" men. The truth is, however, that our "orientation" is not
on a Cartesian scale, it is in a multidimensional space, often pointing
in different directions at once, even on a given dimension; and this
space is so complex as to be effectively individual. You and I
may agree that a certain person looks good, but if we explore our range
of attractions, we will likely find significant areas with little or no
overlap. The lexicon of Krafft-Ebing, Hirschfeld, Money, and the
American Psychiatric Association serves to obfuscate this essential
truth, and to force us into molds which confine and contain us for use
as pawns in political battles.
|
