Is ‘pedophilia’ going to join this parade? It might.

In one sense, we might ask ‘who cares?’ Child molestation would still be illegal irrespective of what mental health ‘experts’ said or did. Sexual interaction with a child is not the same thing as sexual commerce between two consenting adults (as, for example, with homosexuality). Children are considered to have a reduced capacity to consent to things adults routinely decide — certainly this is true when it comes to having sex with an adult.

On the other hand, psychiatry has poked its nose into social policy with profound effects before. Homosexuality is an obvious example, but so is gender-mutilating surgery (see the October issue of Family Research Report). So, might a similar effect occur with child molestation?

Philosophically, the definition of “pedophilia” is winding along the same course that “homosexuality” and so-called “transsexualism” took 50 years ago. If psychiatry is consistent with its principles of ‘helping the client above all else,’ all the so-called ‘paraphilias’ will be abandoned. In the not too distant future, those who crave sex with children, or to torture or be tortured when they have sex, or to enjoy sex with animals, et cetera, will be have to be judged mentally “OK.”

But to what will a psychiatric ‘stamp of approval’ translate when it comes to social policy regarding adult-child sex? There is no logical reason why sex with the underage would be more apt to be regarded as non-criminal if the perpetrator were not ‘sick.’ Indeed, if perpetrators were considered ‘mere criminals,’ the situation might be better. After all, so many of the recent, successful lawsuits against the Catholic Church resulted from two decisions by the Church: 1) its trust in the diagnosis by psychiatrists of child-molesting priests as “pedophiles;” and 2) its acceptance of psychiatric treatment of such “pedophiles” and psychiatric pronouncement that they were “cured.”

Of course, those who want to have sex with children may take the same tack as homosexuals or those who want a ‘sex change.’ Since “psychiatry has proclaimed us not ‘sick,’ we should be legally and socially accepted. Nor should our behavior be criminalized.” Such a strategy — ‘a winner’ for homosexuals and those desiring sex changes — will undoubtedly be pursued by those who want to have sex with children. But they will have to contend with the forces that have led to raising the age of consent much higher than it has been in most of human history. Indeed, the needs of modern society for fairly-well trained workers may push the age of consent still higher. And countless laws and programs to ‘protect children’ at the federal and state levels now have bureaucracies sustaining them. So whether being ‘mentally OK’ will prove truly useful for those seeking to ‘liberate’ child molesters is an open question.

What Is A Pedophile
So who or what is a “pedophile?” At this point in history, pedophilia is still a mental disorder, an unnatural sexual attraction to, and fixation upon, children. But within the next few years, the very term “pedophile” is likely to either be dropped from the nomenclature of psychiatry altogether, or it will become a parallel to the term “homosexual,” a way to describe someone’s mental state or orientation but without connoting any mental disability.

At its root, the concept of “pedophile” is a hang-over from when psychiatry, in its attempts at legitimacy, played at “moralizing” to compete with religion. Indeed, fifty years ago, the mental health profession was competing for attention and status with Christianity. Its professionals were competing with ministers and priests for the status of ‘guru’ (i.e., someone with the authority to tell you ‘the right way to live’). But where ministers ‘spoke for God,’ psychiatrists spoke for the latest science and ‘the best in human thought’ (so they claimed).

Psychiatry sought to capture from the Church the ‘right’ to label things good or bad. So psychiatry called many sins ‘mental illnesses’ or ‘mental disturbances.’ Thus, homosexuality was a ‘mental pathology,’ as was regular sex with children, or even sadomasochism. But now these so-called paraphilias are slowly but surely being re-classified. The end of homosexuality as a ‘disease’ began the process of removing all of these ‘paraphilias’ from the disease nomenclature.

A key event — possibly the key event — in the struggle for social supremacy between the Church and psychiatry was Christine Jorgensen, an American G.I., who was surgically mutilated to appear like a woman and was accorded social status as a ‘woman’ in 1953. This ‘treatment’ of an individual who would have been considered up until this time ‘a nut’ by most folk (and a sinner by the Church), was titanic. Doctors had determined that this fellow ‘needed’ this operation and change in social status. Doctors determined that this ‘treatment’ was a ‘success.’ And the American public ate it up, turning this he/she into a star performer until his death at age 62.

As time went on, the Church began to consult psychiatry for ‘insights’ into what made people tick and for help in getting people to stop doing sinful things. The Catholic church hired psychiatrists to ‘cure’ priests who molested boys. Today, psychiatry is in the cat-bird seat. And it is feeling its oats. So it is shedding most of the vestiges of ‘Church morality’ and substituting a morality of its own based on “client fulfillment.”

Psychiatry has now instituted its own brand of ‘morality’ and ‘moralizing,’ one that is individual-centered (or client-centered) rather than God-centered or society-centered. It also no longer feels inferior to Christianity — indeed it sees itself as superior, and may, on balance, be accepted by our culture as more authoritative than Christianity.

A few hundred years ago, pastors often lived on government tax-money. Fifty years ago, the church held more clout than the mental health profession. Today, the situation has reversed. And the mental health profession in on the verge of having its practitioners live at U.S. government expense. We are told that ‘mental health is just as important as physical health, and visits to mental health professionals are just as valuable as visits to an M.D.’

Because of their perceived authority, psychiatrists may indeed re-classify pedophilia either out-of-existence, or perhaps as a variant of normal sexual expression. Whether they can convince our legal system and other social institutions to go along remains to be seen. In any case, FRI believes that pedophilia never existed in the first place. The most appropriate nomenclature has existed for at least hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Any female who molests a girl, and any male who molests a boy, is a sodomite, one who practices homosexual behavior. They are law-breakers, not “pedophiles.”

The last issue of Family Research Report highlighted the growing visibility and legal status of so-called ‘transsexuals.’ The mental health profession created the condition of ‘transsexualism’ during the past century — along with the condition of ‘homosexuality’ — but it hasn’t stopped there. Today, a small but growing number of people want to have one of their legs or arms cut off. One internet-based listserv, whose membership was 1,400 two and a half years ago, has 3,670 subscribers today.

According to some of our mental health experts, these poor, suffering individuals need help, and the only thing that works is amputation. So their solution is that society must help these folk by amputating the offending leg or arm!

Some professionals have even given this ‘condition’ a name: “body integrity identity disorder.” It is a disorder that can only be ‘cured’ by amputation. Ironically, then, these mental health experts, including some at Columbia University, contend that society must make these people handicapped in order to “cure” them of their affliction.

Carl Elliott writes about this new insanity in the on-line magazine Slate (Costing an arm and a leg: The victims of a growing mental disorder are obsessed with amputation; July 10, 2003). Elliott discusses “an increasingly visible group of people who call themselves ‘amputee wannabes.’ Wannabes desperately wish to have their healthy limbs removed.”

A university lecturer had his leg amputated by a surgeon who has also amputated the legs of two healthy people. “Why? Nobody really knows, including the wannabes themselves, who often say they have had the desire since they were children.” As we reported in our last issue of Family Research Report, few transsexuals actually express a desire to have a mutilation or be the opposite sex while they are children. It is likely that the same is true of these amputee wannabes.

Notice a pattern here? Both transsexuals and amputee wannabes are likely iatrogenic. The syndrome or condition is probably generated or induced by the therapist; a form of autosuggestion based upon the therapist’s handling of or discussing of the issue. Elliott is concerned about this. He noted that “the mental health professionals in the film Whole (a social worker, a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist at Columbia University) speak with absolute confidence.” Even by writing about voluntary amputation, Elliott says “I worried more people might start to identify themselves as wannabes and seek out amputation.”

His concern is justified. Elliott says that “anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with the history of psychiatry cannot help but be struck by the way that mental disorders come and go.” If this is “science,” how can this be? A star is still a star no matter what the fashion or nomenclature in astronomy. The same is not true of mental healthism. Elliott notes that “conditions like social anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, gender identity disorder, multiple personality disorder, anorexia, and chronic fatigue syndrome were once seen as rare or nonexistent, then suddenly they ballooned in popularity. This is not simply because people decided to “come out” rather than suffer alone. It is because all mental disorders… have a social component.”

• “the conditions are usually backed by a group of medical or psychological defenders… who insist that the condition is real.”

• “there is usually no hard data about the causes or the mechanism of the condition”

• There is no way to get “objective confirmation of the diagnosis, which is usually made solely on the basis of the narratives and behavior of patients.” And,

• There is “often (but not always) a treatment for the condition even in the absence of knowledge about its causes and mechanism. The diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, for example, was driven by the development of profitable medications to treat it, such as antidepressant drugs.”

Once the ‘condition’ is well launched, soon it is being “discussed in journals and at conferences.” Then clinicians start to “diagnose the disorder more and more commonly,” the condition is talked about in support groups, therapy sessions, Internet venues, etc. Then, thanks to the status and authority of mental healthism, “patients begin to reinterpret their own psychological histories in light of what they hear, and their behavior changes to match what is expected of people with the condition they believe they have.”

So it is with the conditions of ‘homosexuality,’ ‘gender identity disorder,’ and ‘body integrity identity disorder.’ Patients often “diagnose themselves and decide on the proper treatment.” That is, the professionals follow the lead of the mad and vice-versa — the ultimate in self-fulfilling prophecies.

Mental health schemes, like those of Marxists, have enormous implications for society. Slicing penises and manufacturing them into semi-vaginas is a costly social enterprise (making vaginas into quasi-penises is more costly still). Likewise, removing a limb. The client can’t do it for himself. It may be ‘his body,’ but it is not ‘his operation.’ Highly trained surgeons and nurses, hospital beds, and drugs, etc. — among the most expensive resources of society — have to be employed. Major disruptions in the patient’s social network occur and have to be “fixed.”

Then, because a transsexual is not a woman, but rather a mutilated man (or vice-versa), laws must be enacted to ‘protect’ such individuals from ‘discrimination.’ Such laws already exist, of course, for the handicapped, as amputees suddenly become. School children and the general public must be ‘educated’ about the ‘normalcy’ of the desire to dress like or be somewhat like the opposite sex. Can the same be far behind for those who voluntarily choose to be legless or armless? And, of course, because these ‘conditions’ are presented as ‘normal,’ a few who ‘get the education’ will wonder if this is not the answer to their own ‘mental health problems.’

Growing Influence
The influence of mental healthism is far-reaching and ever-increasing. It has re-labeled many ‘sins’ or ‘crimes’ such as homosexuality as harmless ‘conditions.’ Its emphasis upon feelings and mysterious ‘conditions’ that absolve one of responsibility has resulted in mental health professionals forming a second line of defense for criminals. Social scientists — arguing from Marxist and ‘civil rights’ perspectives — often contend that those who engage in property crimes have no, or reduced, responsibility because they were poor or discriminated against.

In like manner, mental health professionals testify that sexual criminals have no, or reduced, responsibility because they weren’t treated appropriately by their parents or peers. As a consequence, if a fellow robs a bank and sexually molests a teller in the process, mental health professionals often provide the excuse for the rape while social scientists provide the excuse for the robbery.

Indeed, mental healthism has so grown in visibility and prestige that many are making major life changes to achieve ‘mental health.’ In the past, those who ‘didn’t know what to do with their life’ often chose a religious vocation and submerged their identity in devotion to God. Today, following a more self-centered approach, a growing minority is choosing a career of deception and mutilation instead. By mutilating or subtracting body-parts, they become the center of their social space.

Further, the mutilations are only part of their ‘career’ of self-fulfillment to achieve mental health. Mutilation as a ‘career choice’ is booming, in substantial part because it is “iatrogenic.” Therapist gurus have invented notions such as ‘transsexualism’ or ‘body integrity identity disorder’ and have gotten society to participate in mutilating sex organs or cutting off limbs so that their client can achieve mental health. As well, the attention that the media is giving the mutilated and the ‘cause’ of those who want to be mutilated is resulting in large numbers of ‘mediagenic’ cases.

In the not so distant past, you were considered flat-out ‘mad’ if you wanted to have your ears, penis, breasts or arm removed. (Of course, piercings for cosmetic reasons, such as for ear-rings, did not put one in the ‘crazy’ category, and belly-rings and tongue-rings generally put one today in the ‘young and rebellious’ classification.) A responsible surgeon, even if he thought he had the technical ability to remove an ear, would refuse to remove a body part because he would be put at risk of being prosecuted as ‘doing harm’ rather than ‘practicing medicine.’

Today, if you want an arm, genitals, breasts, or leg removed (and maybe more), you may get your wish. All you must do is convince a psychiatrist or psychologist that that’s what you need to fulfill your deepest need, to heal your lack of mental ‘wholeness.’ Indeed, a growing number of people “suffering” from newly minted psychiatric “conditions” want their legs, arms, and/or genitals removed. The psychiatric response is ‘if this is what it takes to make you achieve mental health, OK’! For many, this is a “new life-course,” a career to which they can devote the bulk of their life. All this to achieve ‘optimal mental health.’

Yet, ‘mental health’ is a concept that has never been clearly defined — it is, at best, the absence of any ‘serious mental problem’ as defined by psychiatry. And if getting rid of part of your body gets you more of ‘it,’ you have to wonder about the ‘health’ part of ‘mental health.’

We noted in the May 2003 issue of Family Research Report that cure rates of less than 1% per year were reported by the Community Mental Health establishment in Seattle (e.g., these clients no longer had to be ‘treated’). This is a very modest achievement. Yet the practitioners of the ‘mental health faith’ claim to be scientific gurus who have the ‘real answers to life.’ Indeed, they promise not just correct diagnoses of what’s wrong with you, but the correct treatments to make you ‘whole.’ FRI stands amazed that this modern gnosticism holds so much sway in our supposedly empirically-minded society.

In an effort to block the legitimizing of homosexual marriage — either by the commonwealth of Massachusetts or the U.S. Supreme Court — pro-family activists are touting a so-called “marriage amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. Happily, a majority of Americans polled say they oppose homosexual marriage.

However, once such an amendment has passed, federal judges will begin to twist and distort it to their own ends, just as they have done with the First and the 14th Amendments. As for the Ninth and 10th Amendments, federal judges routinely ignore them. The problem lies with the judges, particularly the justices of the Supreme Court. Six of these, like Humpty Dumpty, now believe that words mean just what they choose them to mean, neither more nor less. They would make lamb stew of a marriage amendment in no time.

Their absolute power to override law, veto popular referenda and use the Constitution as a bludgeon to effect social change is the gravest problem we face as a nation. The Founding Fathers placed effective restraints on every other branch of government. But they misjudged the potential for tyranny in the federal judiciary.

It’s time to rectify this mistake. I propose the same answer the Founders gave to King George — a strong dose of democracy. The solution is to restore legislative power with a constitutional amendment that mandates federal judges stand for election every four years. Under this new system, the president’s party and the major opposition party would nominate candidates for each judicial post in the federal system every four years. Though incumbents could stand for re-election, neither party could nominate an incumbent. The party that nominated each candidate would be listed on the ballot so voters would have a sense of each candidate’s worldview. Judges would be elected in the circuits in which they would serve. Supreme Court justices would be elected by the American people as a whole.

As for the effort to pass a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it virtually is dead. Getting any amendment to the Constitution passed is difficult. This one starts out with two-and-a-half strikes against it. First, most legislators do not have a dog in this hunt. The marriage amendment will not increase their power, and it is a Christian moral statement. The last successful moral amendment instituted Prohibition. And it didn’t survive two decades. The country has lost its taste for Judeo-Christian crusades.

Second, the House sponsor of the current marriage amendment has stated that she has no problem with civil unions. She construes the amendment essentially as reserving the word “marriage” for straights. This is the same rhetoric that pro-family folk used in California for passage of its pro-marriage amendment. That rhetoric came back to haunt them when opponents argued, “Since you said you have no problem with civil unions, we will give everything but the word marriage to homosexual couples.” They did just that.

Third, Democrats strongly favor gay marriage. Consider what the Democrats are doing to Bush judicial nominees. There is no way that two-thirds of the Senate and House will vote for a marriage amendment. Remember the “blue states versus the red states” map in the last presidential election? While most states voted for George W. Bush, the tally was far shy of the three-fourths needed to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The alternate tactic of empowering citizens to vote for judges could work to save marriage and a lot else. The fact is the courts have usurped legislators’ power. The judicial dictatorship has reduced legislatures to “governance over things about which the judiciary does not care.” And who knows what such issues might be? After all, this Supreme Court just decided that Congress could legislate against sexually explicit pictures of kids, but computer simulations of children were protected under “freedom of speech”!

An amendment stripping the judiciary of its dictatorial powers would be in legislators’ interest. So they have a dog in this hunt. Legislators are a vital part of any attempt to amend the Constitution. Simultaneously, the election of judges would provide an opening for majority will regarding marriage to prevail.