A lingering social death by contempt, humiliation and shame is the daunting prospect I face when I go ahead with my next planned blog in a few days’ time. It is not the enemy’s scorn I fear – the more resilient of us can live with that – but, far worse, that of my friends.
So, in a bid to ease the anticipated sting of your withering rebukes, I am going to use today’s Heretic TOC to set the scene in what I hope will be a disarming way. What appears below is a book review I wrote a few years ago for Berlin University’s Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, which is now independent and known simply as the Archive for Sexology – a great resource, by the way: the Growing Up Sexually section is superb on childhood sexual acculturation beyond the modern developed world.
The review is of a memoir by Margaux Fragoso, who had a long childhood relationship with a paedophile. I briefly mentioned this book once before in The consequences of consequentialism last year, a piece which might particularly interest those heretics here of a philosophical bent.
As for why my next blog could be a source of such utter mortification to me, and why the review is relevant, you’ll just have to wait and see!
Margaux Fragoso, Tiger, Tiger: A Memoir, Penguin, London, 2011
Seven-year-old Margaux sees a grey-haired old man at the local swimming pool. Two little boys are frolicking with him in the water. The three of them are having great fun, whereas she has no playmates. Her mentally ill mother is sitting at the poolside; her father, an emotionally abusive alcoholic, is not around.
Quickly sensing the man must be an exceptionally friendly adult, she approaches.
“Can I play with you?” she asks.
“Of course,” he answers, playfully splashing her face.
It is the start of a relationship that almost immediately becomes sexual, in ways graphically described; it continues as romantic through her teens and ends only when his death parts them after fifteen years. She tells of being in love, “addicted” to her elderly lover’s company; of her lover, she says, “I was his religion”.
The echo of Nabokov’s Lolita is clear, with its famously rapturous opening paean to a beloved “nymphet”; but Tiger, Tiger is billed as a memoir, not fiction – and certainly not a work of paedophilic pornography, or propaganda, as might otherwise be suspected from my introduction. Even though it reads like a novel, author Margaux Fragoso has been at pains to insist, in the face of reviewers’ scepticism, that it is a faithful record of a well documented relationship with Peter Curran, a hard-up, long-term unemployed invalid and girl-oriented paedophile, who committed suicide at age 66, when she was 22. He had not been sexually interested in the boys at the pool, who were the sons of his landlady-cum-not-quite-girlfriend: he was just good with them anyway.
Although a whole clutch of memoirs, especially in the “misery lit” genre, have been exposed as fake in recent years, Tiger, Tiger strikes me as the real thing. It is clearly not written as pornography, because the sexual descriptions are utterly unsexy: while Fragoso portrays herself as a willing, and at times even a demanding, participant in under-age sexual acts, her own lively sexuality is always at odds with the sense of grossness and disgust she feels towards the wrinkled, decrepit body of her aging lover and the whore’s repertoire of tricks and role plays he nags her into performing.
Nor can she be accused of propagandising in favour of a child’s ability to consent to sex with an adult. Ultimately, the author is plainly of the opinion that the relationship was harmful to her in many ways, and that men like Peter need treatment.
As a paedophile myself, throughout my adult life I have resisted all the conventional arguments against children’s willing participation in sexual contacts with adults, especially when the older party is affectionate and loving. None of these arguments, or the evidence adduced in their support, has ever made much impression on me. I have even written books saying exactly why they are unconvincing.
But I find Fragoso’s work is strikingly more effective than all the usual moralising, with vastly more persuasive clout than the endless plethora of one-sided and even dishonest victim narratives so beloved of our cultural media, from tabloid yarns to TV documentaries, to films and novels. Tiger, Tiger is an immensely powerful testament. I am in my mid-sixties, with a typical old dog’s shortcomings over learning new tricks; but Fragoso is making me think again.
How so? What is the source of this extraordinary power? It is simply that Fragoso’s account is not one-sided. Tiger, Tiger comes across as a determined attempt by the author to examine all aspects of her relationship with Peter with the utmost candour, and calm honesty. Rather than simply vilifying and demonising him, “letting out the anger”, as “survivors” are often encouraged to do, she strives for an objective, almost scientific, description of how things came to pass, her feelings at the time and what they led to. In an Afterword, she speaks of having “learned through my writing”: through pondering, and describing, she leads both herself and the reader towards a reasoned assessment.
It is also a balanced and fair one. We are told, for instance, not just that Peter could be violent and was often “pushy” in his sexual demands. No, we are additionally told that far from being “innocent”, little Margaux as a child could be calculating and manipulative, and she spells out exactly how. Ultimately, of course, there is no moral equivalence: the adult must take responsibility.
The author’s judicious even-handedness is what makes Tiger, Tiger such a stand-out from the many hundreds of learned journal articles and books I have read on adult-child sexual encounters. For me, this is one of the most impressive and important of the lot. As a set text for reading and discussion by participants in sex offender treatment programmes I suspect it would be more successful in helping reduce recidivism than the crude brain-washing usually served up.
The only caveat to my recommendation – but it is an important one – is that there are severe constraints on what can reasonably be concluded from any one account. Fragoso herself makes two major mistakes: she over-interprets what can be learned from her own experience, and then over-generalises these questionable conclusions, seeking to apply them invalidly to all child-adult sexual contacts. To take the second point first, a properly scientific account demands the investigation of hundreds, indeed preferably thousands, of cases before general statements can be made with any confidence, and even then effects associated with the data do not necessarily reveal a particular cause. I suspect Fragoso would be surprised to learn that the most rigorous statistical studies of the available evidence do not support the conventional view that such contacts are in general very harmful.
On the first point, there are many ways in which the book leads the reader towards the view that the relationship with Peter was deeply traumatic: to take the most serious of these, the sexual side compromised her, making her feel she was “corrupted” and that others would regard her as worthless. Even the “romantic” aspect was awful because it locked her for year after year into emotional dependency on a partner who had no future, and whose attentions kept her unhealthily alienated from her peers – which may have been why, in a belated act of redemption, Peter ultimately killed himself, setting her free at last.
While these terrible facts are undeniable, what the author’s own conclusions ignore is the serious possibility that without Peter’s love and support her life might well have been even worse. It was her father, after all, not Peter, who would habitually rant and scream at her, telling her she was a worthless burden, before she had even met Peter. Her response as a small child had understandably been one of aggressive “acting out”: she would randomly kick other people in the street. After meeting Peter, she transferred that aggression to him, lying and playing mean tricks on him. His reaction, by contrast, was generally one of patient, almost saintly restraint: Margaux’s admittedly delusional mother even thought he might be a reincarnation of Jesus, “so wise” was he, “and pure of heart”. The presumably non-delusional author would commend his consistent support for her creative side, and the praise he habitually lavished on her, boosting the self-worth so sapped by her father.
So, as one feminist reviewer grudgingly conceded, “it’s complicated”. In terms of what caused the bad outcomes in her life, a scientist would have to note that there were “confounds”: in other words, there were other factors apart from having an early sexual relationship that could account, wholly or in part, for all that went wrong.
And, hey, despite the extremely unpromising start of having two massively unsatisfactory parents, a lot eventually went right for Fragoso. She is now a best-selling writer, after all, as well as being in a stable adult partnership which has seen her become a mother. These successes might have come despite Peter’s role in her life or thanks to it: those confounded confounds make it hard to tell which.
Ultimately, though, Tiger, Tiger should be judged not as a failed work of “scientific” self-observation, nor in literary terms as an inferior imitation of Nabokov, as some critics have maintained. Her style and subject matter admittedly invite comparisons with the celebrated novelist, but we must remember that this work is a memoir, not a novel. As such, it is simply an apparently honest account that does far more justice to the complexity of the issues than most of the “child sexual abuse” literature.
MILESTONE
One other thing, a milestone worth noting in passing: there have been over 100 comments in response to the last blog, Hail to a hero of ‘transgressive expression’, largely on account of some very lively discussion prompted by young “adultophile” James. That’s three figures for the first time. Great, keep it coming on future topics!
I finally found time to read “Tiger Tiger” and a real tear-jerker it is. The last few chapters in particular were almost too painful to read. I agree with you Tom, this story has the power to shake convictions, more than any amount of rational argumentation.
I found Fragoso’s description, through her little-girl mind, of sexual acts that Peter saw as consensual very gripping indeed: Her eagerness on the one hand and being totally grossed out on the other.
And that occasion in the basement (Margaux is 8) when Peter knows very well there is coercion. How I winced.
As a father of two grown kids, as a basically celibate MAP with one glorious mini-Peter/Margaux event in my past (perhaps only 4% of what they went through, thanks to the timely intervention of family) where does this leave me? Still basically pro-contact but perhaps, just perhaps, a tad more in touch with reality. Desire is a powerful driver. Younger children really do occupy a different world and respecting this is paramount.
I wonder how Nick & Ethan would react to it….
I wonder too. I’m inclined to think they’d use it to justify VP. For my own part a lot has happened this year (reading this book included) to force me to reconsider where I stand. But in the end the VP position just seems too, well, false. Have no time to collect my thoughts here and now about this but it would be interesting to hear from Nick and/or Ethan.
(BTW and posted in the wrong place: I know there has been some commenting here about the name Virtuous Pedophiles, can’t find it now, but I wonder if the Word “Virtuous” has positive connotations in face-value USA compared to negative ones in British culture (where down-playing is the thing). Could be enough to get people pre-rankled. I’m thinking for example Little Britain and the follow up Little Britain USA with its self-help group “FatFighters” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Britain_USA. My prejudices suggest that in the US the name FatFighters might be seen in a positive light. The fact that Little Britain USA only ran one season may or may not be relevant.)
I’m pretty sure “virtuous” connotes positively in the US, particularly among religious people. I never considered whether the different connotations across the Atlantic might factor into their perception…
Interesting idea. Cool if true!
@James. Continuing with Chloe and Madonna, I can report that I interviewed them and wrote an article for the prison magazine. The authorities seemed quite happy to let me do this as the two of them had created quite a stir on the wing. They were “the talk of the town”, so to speak. I guess the official thinking was that it would be good to let the pair have their say about themselves through me: nothing was going to appear without their own approval.
I don’t know for sure whether the article ever actually appeared in print because I wrote the piece when my sentence was coming to an end and I left before the scheduled publication date. However, I did get a print-out of my submission, which I kept. I have now put this up as image files on Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public/Chloe%20%26%20Madonna
This part is particularly relevant to what you were saying, James:
>Ask Chloe and Madonna, and they will tell you very clearly that they are not effeminate men; nor are they “camp” or “gay” or “cross-dressers”. Nor is it merely that they feel like women. Rather, they are of one accord in asserting “I am a woman”. Not “I want to be a woman, or “I will be a woman after I’ve had a sex-change operation”, but “I am a woman”.<
However, as you will see, Madonna insisted, despite being in a prison for men only, that she had been diagnosed as biologically female. Chloe, on the other hand, was convincingly feminine in appearance but made a purely psychological claim to being female.
Without access to their medical records I could not go beyond what they were telling me. Nor did I particularly want to: I saw this as a chance for them to introduce themselves to their fellow inmates, with me, as it were, just putting it into writing.
Inmates do not normally have access to the internet in UK prisons and this was to be no exception. However, because technical medical issues were at issue, I asked the staff to download some relevant info for me after suggesting certain search terms to them. This was a very imperfect way of working but better than nothing – or at least I hope you will think so, James, if you read the piece.
I’ll go through your report. Thanks 🙂
To respond to your comment above:
“the two of them had created quite a stir on the wing.”
What happened? Was it the mere fact that they were trans or did they do something?
‘Rather, they are of one accord in asserting “I am a woman”.’
That’s kind of the point of being trans 🙂
“Madonna insisted, despite being in a prison for men only, that she had been diagnosed as biologically female.”
My first suspicion is that she was lying for sympathy (I might have done the same in her position). On the other hand, it’s a possibility and, if it’s true, Her Majesty’s justice system must have really messed up.
“Inmates do not normally have access to the internet in UK prisons”
Why? That seems pointless. You do have educational facilities, right? Why ban the internet?
I may have obliquely touched upon the cause of the “stir” in the article. I think it was mainly a matter of Chloe’s sensationally good looks. I would say there was quite a lot of sexual excitement in the air. With or without any sexual action, I’m sure a lot of the guys just thought she was great to look at. Even in ordinary prison gear she seemed a whole lot more glamorous than any of the female prison officers, though it has to be said the competition they presented was not strong!
I think Madonna may have been a bit jealous of Cloe, actually. The two of them were “best friends forever” when I interviewed them but they had a bust up a couple of weeks later and got separate cells. I would have left maybe a few days after that, so I never found out exactly what went wrong.
There may have been developments since I left in 2007, but I doubt it. The government recently banned prisoners from having books sent in! They seem to have largely given up on rehabilitation and prefer to look “tough” and punitive. Specifically as regards the internet, they appear to be pandering to those among the public who see the internet as a source of crime rather than education.
At one time, an excellent range of courses was available to inmates through the Open University, which pioneered distance learning in the UK in the 1970s through public TV and radio programmes. The traditional mail service was used to send out course books and to receive written work for marking. There were also telephone tutorials. You could even get kit for science experiments through the post, including, for biology, sheeps’ hearts for dissection!
By my time in 2006-7, though, the OU’s courses had mainly gone online. But I was able to do a philosophy course: it was one of the few options left that did not require internet access.
Chloe looked that good without ever using oestrogen? Not even non-clinical/illegal oestrogen? Lucky!
At the very least the computers could be locked to only the OU website. I don’t see why you’d want to write off the entire internet. Besides, who in their right mind would do something illegal on online while in prison and under constant surveillance?
Also, from the scans:
‘”They creep in to try and see me without my bra,”‘
Ick! Creepy! Have they never heard of privacy?
“Does it mean Chloe and Madonna are being scandalously exposed to danger? Anxieties of this nature could explain the prison’s reluctance to let them wear dresses and make-up.”
Bull shit. If you’re worried for their safety, don’t put them in a male prison! Otherwise, don’t pretend clothing is going to make a difference. It’s just psychological harm for no actual benefit – like many other policies I could name.
PS: I just remembered (though I’ve been aware for a while) that I’m not the only transgender lesbian here. Given how rare we are in general, I’m led to wonder if this site is some how selecting for us 🙂
In case you don’t recognise her: that’s the WordPress blog of the person who ‘liked’ this post.
Can’t access dropbox, for some reason. Anywhere else you can put it?
OK, James, I’ll think about it. If all else fails I can send by email.
Umm. Perhaps you might be able get the individual page URLs even if you can’t get the folder.
Try this URL for the first page:
then these:
If you can spot the difference between these five URLs you are doing better than me; but they do actually bring up five different pages. Ah, yes, just seen it near the end: 281, 282, etc.
Tom
Well, there’s a serendipitous result! I’d no idea the pages were going to appear right here!
Well isn’t that surprising! I wonder if this is a general interaction between the drop-box and WordPress architectures….
I’ll put this on my “to read” list.
Like you, Tom, I’ve often felt like we get a raw deal when we get all the negatives piled upon us [even if they aren’t deserved, or credibly tracked back to us], while being denied any positives.
Human relations are human relations. As such, they aren’t endless joy at every moment…but, preferably, they are worthwhile and serve a critical need.
Reading your post and summary…a thought which occurred to me is…who is to say that Margaux would not have become a teen suicide statistic, in the absence of Peters validation of her life and worth?
In all honesty…if Peter was her only stability and encouragement, in a life otherwise chaotic and abusive…he may have played a critical role in her very survival.
[…] Love is confoundedly complicated! […]
coming from a third world holiday destination,From the Airport in the Taxi,I noticed,a guy urinating by a lamp post,while two school girls walked passed.
they didn’t seem to care,just giggled a bit,and carried on down the road.
I noticed the same thing on another occasion.We can imagine what could
happen to guy’s like that anywhere in the west,especially in the UK.
It was a breath of fresh air,to be in a more relaxed climate,apart form the hard selling and supposed deadly mosquitoes.many will know my sexuality is very broad,and I am hetero as much as anything else,the women/girls are very willing to please,you even get harassed to the point of exhaustion,just make
sure they’re 18,I’m sure the security at the hotels check on entrance and exit.
You can get arrested for urinating at the side of the road in the First World? Why? You people are way too uptight 😛
Sadly, James, yes indeed. If you get caught peeing on the side of a road in America (and in other First World nations) you could be arrested and indicted for indecent exposure. And God help you if you happened to get spotted by minors, because you can easily have much more severe penalties inflicted on you for that.
I’m not sure how severe this attitude is in other Western nations, but in America the culture and the law is indeed very uptight about public nudity, or nudity featured in any place where a minor might see it.
Wow. I’d assumed the urination law must have something to do with hygiene or keeping the place clean – like littering laws. This just seems… silly.
I don’t think we have laws related to nudity. I know that you’ll be socially reprimanded unless you look Anglo-Saxon. This isn’t racism per se – it’s just that most Anglos are assumed to be tourists and most tourist are assumed to be mentally ill.
lol….here is an example of what happens to citizens in the UK charged with
public exposure i.e walking nude of example,this was a BBC documentary
the naked rambler (stephen gough) His fate was sealed when he walked passed a school,though not on this video,that’s a later one i cant find.
In my country tourists are seen as mentally ill,can I ask where you reside?
here is the video..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suDwCyBmVoI
The woman who attacked the camera man was crazy. Around here, we would have quicker arrested her than the ‘ramblers’.
I wont say anything more specific than ‘Latin America’. The thing about foreigners being mentally ill was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. It’s more about cultural relativism. For the most part, we don’t really expect tourists to abide by the conventions of polite society because, to us, all your countries are fucked up.
For example, sodomy is illegal here (I know; it’s stupid) but there was an incident recently where two gay men were having sex in public and the police officer merely asked them to go somewhere else. We really have no expectations of you people 😛
Watching a documentary just before the world cup on prostitution in Brazil
apparently there are some underage prostitutes of both sexes.
To the BBC presenters horror “of course” some of the policemen add to
the problem,by also paying for their services.though with all the armed gangs
I would say,crime like prostitution is the least of the problems there.
Hmm. My suspicion is that in some cases the police officers don’t pay. The relationship between sex workers and the police often isn’t all that friendly…
In madagascar if the police spot a tourist at night,they stop them and ask for your passport…I never carried my passport when going to the discos,I even forgot to get a copy,so you have to pay them,usually 10,000 ariarys equivalent
of a few quid…I had one bad night when I had to pay three of them,they would also stop the taxis,so they can get a passport bunse out of the tourists
the corrupt bastard’s.
Ahhh Tom – I always so love reading your posts but I simply can not look at this review! I only just started reading ‘Tiger, Tiger’ yesterday. No spoilers, please!
You are excused! 🙂 My next post, which will mention Fragoso but not that much, will probably be early next week.
Well, weak-willed as I am I was no more able to resist the allurements of your prose than Peter was able to resist the allurments of Margaux…
I’ve just got about a third of the way through. It’s a fascinating and gripping read and the Peter character is very vivid and reading of his love and romantic feelings towards little Margaux has occasionally moved me close to tears.
But really I don’t think he conducted himself entirely correctly or honourably towards Margaux, if her account and/or her memory is taken as entirely reliable. A succesful child/adult love relationship is a tricky thing to manage, especially in the hostile context we all know. Maybe it’s impossible as one can never account for the effects of stigma and future recontextualisation.
Peter, whilst in some ways he seems wonderful, in other ways, when it came to sex fell short – putting his own desires before her desires and her capacity to understand her own desires.
I have some nagging doubts, to be honest, as to how reliable this memoir is – clearly this is an account in which the details have been filled in by the author’s adult imagination – on the most obvious level: it’s simply not possible to remember dialogue in the detail we find in this book.
Her immediate responses to the sex (there’s not been that much yet) are interesting – I think one of the problems with the way we keep children ‘innocent’ is that we don’t give them the conceptual framework to understand feelings that they are already capable of experiencing and undoubtedly do experience.
The blankness that Fragoso says she went into during some sexual interactions – is that merely because things were happening that she had a poor conceptual framework for understanding? I vaguely remember having feelings and desires when I was a child but really was unable to ‘think’ about them, never mind seek to understand them, because I’d been brought up ‘innocent’.
Anyway, I’ll not go on too long – I’m going to get off and read a couple of chapters before bed-time (maybe not the best reading matter for a paed if he’s planning on getting to sleep quickly…)
First I think I should make a SPOILER ALERT as I’m going to mention things that happen in the first half of the book.
Secondly I’d like to say just how much this is a beautiful, thought-provoking and sensually stimulating read.
Right. I’ve got to about half-way through the book. Margaux has just had her 12th birthday.
If my reading of the book is correct (and that’s a big ‘if’) and my memory serves (and it often doesn’t – so I won’t mind being corrected) what’s happened between Margaux and Peter that could be considered as sensual or sexual is:
– Margaux running around naked,
– having her first orgasm whilst sitting naked on a ticking-over motor-bike,
– a lot of kissing but not yet as intimate as French Kissing,
– one episode where she sucks his penis (not really a ‘blow job’ as it doesn’t go on long enough for Peter to reach an orgasm).
I get the impression that this last ‘blow job’ was a one-off as I can remember no indication that she did this again as yet.
Ok – so out of all those things isn’t the only truly ‘criminal’ thing that takes place that one semi-blow-job?
Yes, there’s been some manipulation, lies, secrecy, but this is not horrific abuse – nor do I get the impression that Margaux was particularly bothered by the blow job, in fact she seemed to be quite keen to repeat the experience…
What am trying to say?
Well, that not that much really happened between Peter and Margaux when she was at an age where the relationship could be truly considered as ‘paedophilic’; and that Peter has been a hugely good influence and factor on Margaux’s life; that Peter truly loves Margaux and Margaux truly loves Peter.
And now she’s well into puberty and approaching adolescence – how much responsibility must that naked running around, that orgasm on the bike, those kisses and that semi-blow-job, take for her being fucked-up, and how much the horrendous and physically and emotionally abusive home-life?
When her father separates them – she goes into a steep decline. Doesn’t that tell us where the REAL problem lies?
I think how beautiful their relationship could have been without society’s and her father’s stigma, the secrecy and the ignorance.
But, as I said, I’m only half way through so I am typing, as it were, through a glass, darkly.
I think the official position is that semi-blow-jobs are traumatic enough to turn a straight-A student into a heroin junkie. That must be one mind-blowing blow-job – in more ways than one!
I definitely sounds like a more balanced book compared to other “sexual abuse survivor” novels. However she, as you mentioned, falls into common traps. Such as, attributing her experience to all experiences, attributing much of her issues to the sexual activity and not the horrendous home life, the pedosexual doesn’t sound like he was very respectful and I don’t mean this like one might think. He cared for the girl very much it seems but pedosexuals get no guidance in our world. He would have been taught that you do not push the child to do things he/she doesn’t want to. You promote growing out of the relationship, not obsession and forever remaining in it. Granted that might be attributed to the awful home life.
“pedosexuals get no guidance”
Not to mention the fact that “pedophile manuals” are now illegal.
The fact that she attributes her experience to all experiences and from what she said in interviews tells me that she’s still attempting to make herself as the ultimate heroine. Her attempt at balance is to make the story sound more believable without making it too difficult to determine who is the hero and who is the villain. In traditional stories the hero is completely good and the villain completely bad. The modern tale gives balance to both the hero and villain but does not make it impossible to tell which is which; at its core it’s still the same good guy vs bad guy story.
Everyone conceptualises themself as a ‘good guy’. When someone tells their own story they look better than they are/were not because they’re sinister but because they’re human!
Sheesh. Everyone here seems to be looking for reasons why this book is extra bad. Can’t we just accept that memoirs are, by nature, unreliable, and leave it at that?
I honestly do not get the impression that Matt was trying to paint Margaux as being sinister or pernicious for her adult (re)interpretation of events, James. I think he was just trying to make it clear that he felt–whether one may agree or not–that she seemed (to him) to be going out of her way to romanticise her retrospective position in the events, rather than sticking to a fully nuanced perspective that recognized no definite villain or hero. This may have left him with the impression that she was ultimately trying to depict herself as a “survivor” of child sexual abuse rather than a participant in a “confoundedly complicated” relationship that both participants stumbled within at various times due to a variety of circumstances (including but not limited to their own human shortcomings). I have yet to read the memoir myself, so I will reserve any final judgment on Margaux’s apparent attitude until I do, of course.
OK. I’m truly sorry if I misinterpreted him.
Mmm…..I think if I wrote my autobiography, it’d be fairly accurate. I would recall events in all their messiness (not 100% correctly of course–that’s impossible). There wouldn’t be any overall ‘message’. Common messages include ‘Aren’t I a great guy/gal?’ and ‘Hasn’t everyone else been horrible to me?’ (Often combined of course.) The latter I guess is typical of ‘victim’ type memoirs. I think a good example of an autobiography that scores quite highly in terms of honesty, as far as it is possible to tell, is Michael Davidson’s The World, the Flesh and Myself.
Well, nothing’s ever going to be perfectly accurate. I think what you’re saying is you wouldn’t have an intentional bias. However, some bias is sure to slip in whether you predict it or not. A bit like the grad student who closed his eyes to wire a neural-net so it wouldn’t have any ‘preconceived notions’. (I know, nerd reference but I can’t think of a better analogy.)
‘However, some bias is sure to slip in whether you predict it or not.’ Well it would depend how thoroughly I did it. If I really tried to put in everything I could remember, then I would have to rush a lot of it. Then I wouldn’t have time to check all the places where unconscious bias might have crept in. But I suppose what I’m saying is that given an infeasibly long time-period, I could do it, or in other words the obstacles would be practical ones, not anything to do with lack of honesty.
Of course, I couldn’t prove I was right. For that I would actually have to write the autobiography within the infeasibly long time-period and also you’d have to have access to all the facts so that you could check them. This is deeply impossible. Maybe I’d just ask you to be a bit more open-minded about people’s powers of objectivity. Maybe you need to read more autobiographies before you make a judgement like this. What you’re describing is a human weakness that can be overcome to a very large extent, at least by some people. I gave Davidson’s autobiography as an example. There must be others. I’m not a prolific reader of autobiographies, but I’ll try to think of some others.
Based on some of Margaux’s words, I suspect that part of the reason for her feeling “harmed” in retrospect is due to the all-too common trend of “slut-shaming” in our society. This is a carry-over element from the Victorian mindset that our society will not give up on. Girls and women are constantly buttressed with the ideology that their self-worth and “value” as a relationship partner, and girl/woman in general, is tainted or diminished in direct proportion to their degree of sexual expression and/or contact with others. Is it any wonder that girls will “regret” sexual contacts more often than straight males in our society? Far less post-coital guilt and shame are flung on their shoulders.
Now add the extreme biases that our society places on girls or young women who have relationships with significantly older men, and a huge extra layer of guilt and shame is heaped upon them. They are supposed to find such liaisons “disgusting.” This is without doubt going to weigh heavily upon many girls following such contacts. Margaux was indeed candid about her role in the entire relationship, including aspects of her sometimes negative behavior towards Peter, and should be commended for that. But in some ways, I think she just cannot escape the pressures to retroactively conform to the common “abuse” narratives in looking back on the whole thing, including the “party line” that the adult is *always* responsible for anything that might go wrong in an intergenerational relationship simply because this correlates with the societal expectation that the adult is always supposed to “know better.”
Lots of good stuff! Just one thing: not all of the higher incidence of regret among women is due to slut shaming. Some of it is The Orgasm Gap.
To quote Ozy Frantz:
“In relationships, women orgasm about 80% as much as men do. However, in casual sex, women have orgasms about half as often as men do, and a third as often in first-time hookups. While, of course, it is possible to have enjoyable sex without experiencing an orgasm, orgasm is an indicator of sexual satisfaction. Possibly this is related to the sex acts: sex in our culture is defined as penis in vagina intercourse, which usually doesn’t result in orgasms for women, and men receive oral sex about eighty percent of the time in first-time hookups, while women receive it less than half the time. Men, imagine if casual sex meant that you gave a woman head and then she ground against your penis until she came, and if you don’t orgasm tough. I imagine most of you would be less enthusiastic about casual sex too.”
Thank you, James! 🙂
I would say, though, that there is a difference between lack of sexual satisfaction due to failure to orgasm and bona fide regret based on socially-enacted guilt and shame. Regarding the orgasm thing: I’ve heard several women brag to me in the past about how they prefer being their gender due to the biological fact that they can have multiple orgasms in succession, as opposed to just one, followed by the retraction period, as is the case with males. A debate about whether males or females derive greater satisfaction from intercourse is very off-topic here, but would likely be interesting! I’m betting, though, that the matter of satisfaction is more due to a variety of factors related to sexual compatibility issues than gender-specific biology alone.
I’ll agree that a large portion of the regret thing is slut shaming, but a non-negligible amount is probably related to sexual satisfaction. Sex can be gross and annoying if you aren’t having fun and that can be part of the regret. It could also be that the two factors merge together into: “I did this shameful thing and didn’t even get anything out of it!”
Also, I’d be willing to bet that those women you know are either in long-term relationships or they run in sex positive circles where the guys know what they’re doing. You’re typical get-picked-up-in-a-bar-and-wake-up-alone girl is unlikely to be putting those multiple-orgasm capabilities to much use.
Of course, I do prefer social explanations like slut shaming which is why I’ll offer a social solution: Men, learn to sex so we wont be in this damn mess! You know how when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail? You know how this is a poor mentality? Same goes for penises.
BTW: Minor terminology quibble. Would you mind saying “sex-specific biology” rather than “gender-specific biology”? It would really help with my peace of mind. I find “gender-specific biology” squicky because my biology is male but my gender is not.
>”my biology is male but my gender is not”
Would you like to elaborate on this at all? It occurs to me you might welcome an invitation to do so. If not, no pressure.
“Would you like to elaborate on this at all? It occurs to me you might welcome an invitation to do so.”
It’s not really a big deal as far as discussing things on your blog goes. I’m much more interested in the philosophy/science. But sure, I’ll be more specific: I’m transgender. I’m not entirely sure whether I’m trans-female or genderqueer but I’m certainly not male. However, I live as male because my society isn’t the best place to transition (sodomy laws are just the tip of the ice-burg). I might transition if I move somewhere else. Also, as previously noted, I’m (exclusively) attracted to females (cisgender or otherwise).
– And before anyone starts wondering, I’m fine with any of the (human) 3rd person pronouns: he/she/they.
OK, thanks. This is one of those subjects where every time one asks a question the answer gives rise to more. So I’d better just leave it there for now.
I don’t mind if you want to ask more questions. I’m just cautious about derailing your blog. I was willing to do it for philosophy because I love philosophy. On the other hand, it’s pretty much tautologically impossible for you to derail your own blog so ask away, I suppose.
OK. Things we have always wanted to know about trans issues but have never dared to ask, Part 1. You say you are transgender. I take it this means psychologically you feel feminine and would like to live as a woman, wearing women’s clothes. You do not say you are transsexual, or transitioning towards that, which would involve losing your penis. Eeeeek! God, how could any guy even think of that given that it’s the source of male orgasm! Anyway, even as a full-time cross-dresser (which I take to be psychologically very different to hetero men getting off on wearing women’s clothes in secret) rather than full-out transsexual, it seems you do not entirely identify with most people’s idea of femininity. If you were fully feminine, wouldn’t you be sexually attracted to males?
So, does that mean you are a male lesbian?
Gulp! You know, I’m really not so hot on the philosophy of meaning and language. Already I feel an ominous sucking, sinking feeling as the dread mire begins to tug at my boots of my mind. Boots of my mind? What on earth does that mean? Aaaagh! It’s getting me. I’m going! The bog is boggling my mind already and we’re still on the first question!
@TOC I’ll leave the reply here.
I use ‘transgender’ because it is the most acceptable term among the people I interact with. I intend to have a completely female body if possible. I understand why removing one’s penis would freak you out but I have dysphoria which is the condition of being continuously freaked out by how WRONG one’s body is. Beside’s, post-op transwomen have female orgasms.
Also, this may be hard to understand/explain, but I am not male any more than an Arab Christian’s physical features make them Muslim. I don’t fully conform to the binary female gender but that still doesn’t make me male. This has nothing to do with my sexual orientation. Lesbianism is not a deviation from femininity. Gender and attraction are separate features and their correlation, confoundedly complicated though it may be, implies neither causation nor identity.
Interesting point on the philosophy of language. The transgender position is, where humans are concerned, classify by psychology, not physiology.
Anything else you’d like to know? General trans questions can probably be best answered by looking up Ozy Frantz, the transgender gender-studies major. For questions specifically pertaining to me, well, no one knows me like I know me 🙂
That sounds reasonable, and I think I get it when you say “The transgender position is, where humans are concerned, classified by psychology, not physiology.” However, when you say “I am not male”, this suggests to me that you are saying something about your physiology in addition to your psychology i.e. something definitely identified, whether hormonal or genetic, or whatever. If that is the case, I wonder if I might have been closer to understanding how you are situated if you had instead described yourself as “transsexual”, even though you haven’t transitioned yet.
I think it’s great, by the way, that you interact so well with everyone here: you come across as pleasant and with good people skills — including patience with those of us who struggle to keep up with your high-powered intellect! I have no reason to disbelieve you when you say you find face-to-face contacts difficult but from the perspective I am getting you seem to be relatively relaxed compared to a few MtF people I have encountered, albeit these encounters have never gone beyond brief and perhaps superficial exchanges.
I am guessing that many trans people have been through an extremely difficult childhood, including parental rejection (as many gay boys experience from their parents, especially fathers) and a tough time at school. It would be understandable to emerge from that experience feeling very bruised and with a certain bitterness and hostility towards the world.
So my next question (if this is OK) is how have you managed to survive so well? I would think you must have loving and supportive parents. Am I right?
“this suggests to me that you are saying something about your physiology in addition to your psychology i.e. something definitely identified, whether hormonal or genetic”
I am also an atheist. Yet, as far as I can tell, there exists no gene, hormone, organ or XML tag for “atheism”. The same is true of “liberal”, “feminist”, “empiricist” etc. In fact, I’d posit that the most meaningful features about an individual are those lacking direct physical expression. You have no problem conversing in a language which uses classifying-nouns for physical and psychological features without any attempt to distinguish them. Confusion only occurs when nouns you previously associated with physical categories (male/female) suddenly become associated with psychological categories. Then your brain throws up a Type Error 🙂
I think your experience of MtF individuals may be confounded by a few factors:
1) Gender Dysphoria, as I previously noted, is terrible. Worse yet, it’s impossible to truly turn off. Mine is actually rather mild compared to many, roughly equivalent to having a bad trip and feeling like insects are crawling on you. Some people have dysphoria that’s so bad it renders life unlivable. Trans people have an astonishingly high suicide rate.
2) Many trans people deal with social rejection and stigma to a far greater degree than most gay people. When living as their preferred gender, they have to either lie or risk anger/violence. When living as their assigned gender, they’re constantly conscious of the fact that many people would not accept them if they changed. This is constant. Gender expression is continuous in a way that sexual attraction/orientation isn’t. I’m not sure how this compares to pedo-stigma, but it’s pretty bad.
3) IIRC, you met transwomen in prison. Besides the fact that prison selects for mental instability, keeping women in a prison for men is unlikely to do anyone any favours.
Yes, my parents are loving. However, I’m only out the closet with one person – my cousin. I’d say the primary factors are (1) the minimal dysphoria and (2) the fact that I generally have superb emotional control. I don’t actually think about it all that much. Suffice to say I’ve been lucky 🙂
Thanks again for your patience. I take your point about no gene for atheism etc. I should also have remembered more about what I was told by Chloe and Madonna in prison. More about them later, though it may have to wait until I get a bit of time next week.
Thank you! It’s interesting to note that ‘Madonna’ adheres to the trend I’ve noticed of MtFs picking exceptionally feminine names. However, I suspect this is true more of older transsexuals. Anyway, I look forward to your future expositions and would like to note that questions are still open – for you and anyone else.
Good point, something I forgot to bring up and should have. She falls into the “reconceptualizing” her memories trap as well. This is something even I did though my experience was with another child as a child. I elaborate in my post about my “origins”. Basically I had an pretty sexual experience I loved and she did. We got caught. I then began to view it as I did something horrible and there was something wrong with me for liking it. If I had done it with an adult I would likely view it as “the adult should have known better” as well. Though now I am smart enough and open minded enough to realize the truth.
Her disgust with the “wrinkly body” doesn’t make sense because then she would be disgusted clothed or not, it sounds more like her anti-sexual upbringing and/or imparting this view as an adult on her childhood self. Children aren’t disgusted normally by wrinkly adults. Also I say this as a non-wrinkly young adult.
“Children aren’t disgusted normally by wrinkly adults.”
Data point of one, but I know I found wrinkles disgusting when I was younger – clothed or not! For the most part, I eventually grew out of it. Of course, I’m weird and probably an outlier.
How common is this re-conceptualisation thing? I had an unpleasant and non-consensual interaction with another kid when I was much younger but I don’t think I’ve ever considered it abuse.
You know, I need to avoid over generalizing. Kids often don’t find them disgusting but they definitely can.
Re-conceptualization happens incredibly often in cases of consensual sexual interaction between an adult and child. To both parties. The child either goes to therapy or just lives life in the anti-child sexuality society. Chances are, unless they have open minded parents or adult to give an opposing view, they will change their memory to view the interaction as bad and abusive. The adult, if caught, will be forced to therapy to “prove” they are safe. Many times they will truly adopt the view that they did harm the child. After all this is what they are told and ganged up on about.
It’s clear that the children of abusers are more likely to abuse, but to what extent are we controlling for heredity vs upbringing? Have there been any studies comparing the biological children of abusers to children who grew up in abusive foster homes? I’d expect a massive disparity.
This was meant as a reply to sugarboy. Damn the comment submission box to sub-optimal utility!
The problem is that I don’t know whether it’s true or whether the author made it up. There have been a number of these novel-like memoirs that have gotten critical praise and made it to best sellers that turned out to be fake. Regardless, any detailed account of childhood written by adults I almost have to assume has some fiction to it. Honesty wouldn’t even be the problem, but the fact that our memories are often not that reliable. One would need a superb memory to write a novel-like account of their childhood that is mostly accurate. (consider too that she wrote this when she was about in her 30’s. By that time most people forget what being a child was even like.)
“By that time most people forget what being a child was even like.”
You wouldn’t mean to say that when parents say they should make all the decisions on the basis that they totally know what being a kid is like, they’re (gasp!) wrong? Inconceivable! [/sarcasm]
Best. Title. Ever. The statistics nerd in me is exceptionally delighted.
Firstly, by way of confounders, heredity is responsible for about half of one’s personality and life-outcomes. With a mentally ill mother and alcoholic father she definitely had a bad start. Plus, since there is only 50% left for environment and Peter accounts for only a fractions of it, it would be pretty much impossible for him to have outweighed her parents even if he were perfect.
Also, it’s a common stereotype that kids who enter relationships with adults have a bad home life. If this is disproportionately true, it could certainly explain a lot of the apparent correlations between “sexual abuse” and bad life outcomes. Broken homes and poisoned genes have already stacked the deck and the selection effect will make it look like this is due to the relationship. Are there any studies that control for this, or at least show that the stereotype is false? I turn to A as our primary source of scientific data.
By way of the future post you’re worried about, my guess is that you’ve decided to qualify your position that consensual adult-child sexual contact is always fine. I have no idea how you might qualify it, though. If I’m right, you’ll end up in the Uncanny Valley between the antis and most of your audience. This is The CNN Effect – where you walk in the middle of the road and you get hit by a bus. If you do end up in the Twilight Zone, you’ll have good company 🙂
Looking forward to the next post to test my hypothesis!
I do hope “A” will soon be back with us, but I don’t think she is yet. In the meantime, I think good old Rind, B; Tromovitch P Bauserman R (1998) should be pressed into service yet again. They did something called regression analysis, which guess you know all about. Regarding psychological problems encountered, “In terms of variance accounted for, family environment outperformed CSA in explaining symptoms by a factor of 9.” See here: https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm
Great to see someone “getting it”! I think I’m entitled (sorry!) to feel pleased! BTW, I think Rind et al. used Pearson’s R, but I wouldn’t know Pearson’s Rs from my elbow – or from Fisher’s ‘ead!
I’m glad you think so highly of my statistical knowledge, but alas I have only passing familiarity with Regression Analysis. I grok the concept but, when it’s as complicated as a meta-analysis, for all I know I might be getting Eulered. However, a factor of 9 doesn’t seem implausible given the way Social Science tends to work.
Also: thanks for the acknowledgement in the post! I hope I haven’t caused too many problems with my This Is Now A Philosophy Blog antics.
Absolutely not, so far as I am concerned! I have been delighted by your input!
Whew. Thanks. I was afraid you might look back on the day you published that post as The Day It All Went Wrong.
Just read it: LOL! Poor old Diderot! And if you are in danger of getting Eulered, God help the rest of us!
I also occasionally have to practice Epistemic Helplessness.
This was actually my initial reaction to Rind et al. Then I noticed that the usual conditions that make consensus narratives worth privileging (apolitical nature, strong evidential basis, statistical soundness, staying 10km away from anything that even sounds like Social Science) were wholly absent in the case of Child Sexual Abuse so now I don’t even know what to believe! Paying attention to evidence is confoundedly complicated!
Where’d A go, anyway?
She mentioned a location in an email to me but I’m not sure whether that is supposed to be confidential. I don’t know any reason why it should be though. Maybe she’ll tell us all about it when she’s back.
Alright. I look forward to her return!
This may be somewhat annoying to read (not a single paragraph or “carriage return” – it is probably the result of a “copy and paste” work), but it nevertheless adresses some of the issues that you mention:
http://www.lobbyfuerkinder.at/library/werk/604/
A published 2005 study that is to some degree relevant here:
This study examines the “Abused-to-Abuser” (AtA) hypothesis of the etiology of adult male sexual attraction to boys, which proposes that a boy who is sexually “abused” will, when older, be predisposed to become an “abuser” of other boys. An Internet survey of participants in online discussion groups and news groups oriented towards men sexually attracted to boys resulted in a convenience sample of 290 males, of whom about one quarter reported a boyhood sexual experience with an older male. Nearly three quarters of these experiences were not perceived as being negative either at the time they occurred or in retrospect. These results from a non-clinical/non-prison sample do not support the AtA hypothesis, and are consistent with similar findings from clinical/prison samples.
http://www.shfri.net/ata/ata.cgi