Defense Styles of Pedophilic Offenders
Defense Styles of Pedophilic Offenders
TW: Pedophilia. Research confirmed use of child abuse for social dominance as a follow up to the previous research on pedophilic use of vulnerability/proximity to reestablish social dominance, in sometimes the most disturbing fashions.
Link : https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/45395429/Defense_styles_of_pedophilic_offenders20160505-5354-25q1f-libre.pdf?1462510575=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DDefense_styles_of_pedophilic_offenders.pdf&Expires=1730999463&Signature=Kl40AuK4TXSJkVCqwi3HLrU3hKPFKrx7Xep-B1Zw0pj0iuJ1KHX6ld3FTPBwIDVWmVRrDCm7pzCC73u8dqv8eEv8Sjm2DMngnOOGFMqK4ERY9f0gRH5oRrjxIxtsP1CsZrml5rdo6cwuZolhdKXwdASEswAR2rd4ybb4kPK96SKVzFLDo4xIK5raOetsTUjp0B-HP70XrASe6cVg7k9Q3C05xbwNOo6NR8bWoqXOFwwDYGJJaYlPJx7MmPQXGa6qYrmWaZ-Ng6iGc--FNc-4v9D9LIDoqdzHF8t0FoLFLOYj-oEKpCZSUAQEwSQpjJ20Irw8pX70X8zTqA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Pasteable Citation : Drapeau, M., Beretta, V., de Roten, Y., Koerner, A., & Despland, J. N. (2008). Defense styles of pedophilic offenders. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 52(2), 185-195.
Pedophiles have many defenses for what they do. They have less obsessional level defenses but more major image-distorting and action-level defenses.
Results showed that pedophiles had a significantly lower overall defensive functioning score than the controls. Pedophiles used significantly fewer obsessional level defenses but more major image-distorting and action-level defenses.
Intellectualization and rationalization were not often found on most pedophiles, but may be found on other perpetrators, like serial killers/pathological homicide.
Results also suggested differences in the prevalence of individual defenses where pedophiles used more dissociation, displacement, denial, autistic fantasy, splitting of object, projective identification, acting out, and passive aggressive behavior but less intellectualization and rationalization.
Almost two thirds of sex offenders deny their offense in whole or in part. This is unfortunately all too common with this type of offender.
. This is also based on findings demonstrating that denial is highly prevalent in sex offenders. As many as two thirds deny their offense in whole (Grossman & Cavanaugh, 1990) or in part (Happel & Auffrey, 1995), even after conviction (Schlank & Shaw, 1996). Others tend to give distorted accounts of their offense (Segal & Stermac, 1990). Various forms of denial have been investigated to identify patterns of denial in abusers. Attempts to identify descriptive typologies of denial have led to the suggestion of up to 14 types of denial related to sex offending (M. McGrath, Cann, & Konopasky, 1998; Wright & Schneider, 1999). These various types of denial do not necessarily reflect different cognitive processing strategies used by the abusers. Instead, they concern the degree or intensity of the denial.
Denial of planning the offense, denial of sexual deviancy and denial of relapse potential (I only did it one time, or it was just xyz because theyâre so xyz, or Iâll never do that again)
(e.g., partial vs. complete denial) or the object of denial (e.g., denial of planning the offense, denial of sexual deviancy, and denial of relapse potential) are seen
Defenses are not irresolvable, but they do take someone in front of them who can see their purpose and how and why they exist. By understanding them, the defenses decline in use. For instance, projection may stop if resolution and prevention of the crime is put first. Projection of an extreme intensity is often the product of severe narcissistic decompensation.
(e.g., Blais, Conboy, Wilcox, & Norman, 1996; Sammallahti & Aalberg, 1995). More importantly, research has shown that patients who do not comply with their medical treatments show strong use of defenses (e.g., Oettingen, 1996) and that understanding the function of a defense leads to a decline in its use (e.g., Cramer, 2006; Cramer & Brilliant, 2001).
Victims were disturbingly young showing a fetishization of the violation and betrayal of defenselessness in the sexually deviant pedophile. Porn with a common theme of defenselessness or overwhelm was often seen in pedophiles even when it wasnât specifically pedophilic in nature.
The victims were between 2 and 11 years of age at the time of the assault.
Pedophiles used less obsessional-level defenses such as omnipotence defenses, which may be more likely to be found on those involved with pathological homicide, but did show image-distorting and action-level defenses.Image distortion includes a âfun house of hateâ mirror effect on the pedophile, as well as action-level defenses which may take a more knee-jerk bodily reaction instantiation such as suddenly charging at the victim or otherwise.
Subsequent univariate analysis corrected for the number of comparisons showed that pedophiles used significantly less obsessional-level defenses but more major image-distorting and action-level defenses. Child abusers are less likely to use abstract thinking when involved with child abuse, but this doesnât mean there arenât few and far between child abusers who do this.
Intellectualisation is more likely to be found on serial homicide or genocide to avoid distressing feelings of the guilt that exists to prevent the antisocial action and should therefore not be evaded by exactly the guilt theyâre trying to evade. Rationalization was also not found as often hich involves devising plausible-sounding and self-serving excuses and reasons to cover up facts and motives that one wishes to hide.
More specifically, the findings suggest that child abusers use less intellectualisation.
Intellectualisation is a cognitive strategy where the individual deals with emotional conflicts or stressors through the excessive use of abstract thinking. This is done to avoid distressing feelings and to distance oneself from a negative or undesirable thought, affect, or impulse. The child abusers in this sample also tended to use less rationalisation, which involves devising plausible-sounding and self-serving excuses and reasons to cover up facts and motives that one wishes to hide. Child abusers gave the impression of being pretty immature and their defenses cheap and cloying (as evidenced by anyone who has witnessed 4chan, a hotbed for pedophilia)
This pilot study suggests that the defense mechanisms used by child abusers are less mature than those used by the controls, as indicated by the significant difference in the ODF score. They use significantly fewer obsessional-level defenses but more immature defenses such as major image-distorting or action-level defenses
Most pedophiles know what they did but donât want to cause violent harm, in congruence with not showing rationalization and intellectualization which are more often found on those involved with serial homicide or genocide.
Then it was different, I really started planning and following kids, and whatnot. The second time, I . . . [participant describes the abuse]. But I didnât hurt him. It was friendly.
Pedophiles often deny that what they did really had any damaging effect on the victim
In this last segment, the impulse was not kept out of consciousness. Instead, the participant carefully planned the assault and was fully aware of his impulse and of the consequences of acting out. However, he denies that the abuse had any consequences for the victim. This pilot study indicates that child abusers tend to use more denial than nonabusers.
Pedophiles also tend to not be the bravest individuals, and are more likely to be found in displacement where if something clearly must be done about some person about which they are sufficiently afraid, they can be found almost certainly displacing the angers that were appropriate to that individual on someone who feels safe who they donât think will retaliate.
The findings also suggest that they tend to use more displacement. This defense involves generalising or redirecting a feeling or a response to an object onto another usually less threatening object.
This leads to a disturbing effect where they will a select a child to take out what they want to take out on the person who inspired the feelings because the child cannot meaningfully defend themselves. This is a disturbing and violent cowardice.
Displacement was often scored when the participants described the circumstances leading to the assault. It is not unusual for abusers, especially regressed abusers (Johnston & Johnston, 1997), to react to a conflict with an authoritative figure by actively searching for and then abusing a child Other individuals use children for the intimacy, respect or recognition they are not receiving from their partners.
Some abusers attempt to obtain from the child some form or another of intimacy, respect, or recognition that they are incapable of demanding or obtaining from appropriate partners.
Finally, the narcissistic self-enhancement use of a child to restore feelings of control over others, self-worth, competence and mastery are seen such as the fetishization of overwhelming assault on a small or defenseless human as a way to reestablish feelings of competency or control when particularly incompetent. This is the most disturbing instantiation and this is no way to establish competency or control. Being competent and in control is. This is not that.
Others use the child to restore their own feelings of control over others and of selfworth, competence, and mastery.
Projecting one ownâs hypersexuality on children is often seen and angry denial when faced with the child's reality of otherwise, showing the narcissistic predisposition for projection.
One participant described a repetitive daydream where he âhelped children discover their sexuality. During these imagined interactions, he felt respected and appreciated by the children, who regarded him as a mentor. Such fantasy enables one to bypass feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, or despair. Instead, the participant feels satisfaction and contentment, and his fantasies contain evidence of feelings of grandiosity.
Fetishization of purity, perfection, or comparison to a work of art in children is also seen showing the grandiose fantasy in its regressed version as its narcissistically decompensated version.
In this study, evidence of splitting where others are seen as all good was found in segments where the abusers spoke of the children they assaulted; for example, one abuser repeatedly described his young victims as âpure,â âperfect,â or âworks of art.â
Projection was seen on many pedophiles.
Projective identification involves projecting an affect, impulse, or thought onto someone else as if it were really that other person who originated the affect or impulse.
Pedophiles might project blame, control and anger onto others if they felt this in themselves and therefore could be identified by their heightening propensity to DARVO combined with the increased propensity to deny this as well as the abuse.
For example, some participants would project blame, control, and anger onto others and explain their own behavior as a simple reaction to what others supposedly do to them.
Fabricating sexual overtones to claim harrassment that is then used to intiate the sexual abuse as consensual is seen disturbingly enough as well.
Other examples in the present study included segments where the participant described the victim as giving sexual overtones to the relationship and where abusing the victim was no more than a response to this presumed seduction.
Acting out attacks include someone not planning the abuse but suddenly grabbing at and sexually abusing the victim. This is the specifically compulsive instantiation of acting up.
Finally, the findings suggest that abusers used more acting out and passive aggression than the control group. In acting out, one acts without reflecting on the possible negative consequences of oneâs action (âI didnât plan it. When I saw him there, I got excited and I just started feeling him off and someone saw me. It was that simple.â),
A pervasive feeling of resentment when working through this was identified, including but not limited to taking pleasure in description or deception in the worst cases. In other cases the perpetrators suddenly lost comprehensive ability and this was a deliberate deceptive falsity meant to derail the investigation found specifically in the pedophile community.
For example, when questioned about the abuse, the participant appears well intentioned and overtly compliant on the surface (thus avoiding retaliation for the direct expression of resentment) but also expresses resentment toward the interviewer and those making demands by covert noncompliance (e.g., feigning not to understand the questions, remaining silent, frequent visits to the bathroom and other interruptions to the interview, being evasive, and evidently taking pleasure in it). Both acting out and passive aggression indicate a diminished ability to tolerate frustration.
Relationship to image-distorting and action defenses may reflect the presence of other Axis I or Axis II disorders that can unearth even further the mechanisms underlying pedophilia.
This pilot study suggests that pedophilic sexual offenders use more pathological defenses than outpatients, including more image-distorting and action defenses and fewer obsessional defenses. It is unclear at this point if these differences are tied to a diagnosis of pedophilia or reflect the presence of other Axis I or II disorders. Future research will need to address this possible limitation as well as potential differences between types of pedophilic offenders.