Male Sexual offenses

Abstract

This article proposes a new approach to male sexual offenses: a theory of the relational-emotional basis of sexual compulsion, and a treatment procedure that deals directly with emotions and relationships. There are two central hypotheses: 1. Offenders have no secure social bonds. 2. The offender's extensive unacknowledged shame takes the direction of compulsive assaults on women. To underline the meaning of social bonds and shame, we review the literature on these two related topics. Assuming for the sake of argument zero bonds and shame outside of awareness as root causes of sexual compulsion, we outline an approach to treatment that increases awareness of social bonds, uncovers hidden shame, and decreases the arousal of shame in the offender's relationships with others.

There is a large literature on the causes of sexual assault and the treatment of sex offenders, summarized in Marshall et al (1990) and Hall et al (1993). Both summaries make it clear that there is no agreement on the causes of sexual assault, nor on its treatment: there is no theory that explains sexual assault, and no treatment that has been effective in treating sex offenders. Here we propose that the main reason for their inconclusiveness is that these studies have not dealt directly and extensively with relationships and emotion, which we take to the main elements in causation and cure. Instead, they focus on behavior, thoughts, and beliefs.

However, there is one reoccurring finding which involves the offender's emotions in an indirect way. Studies have repeatedly shown that sex offenders seek to humiliate their victims, as summarized in Darke (1990). Typically, the authors of these studies interpret the intent to humiliate as an interest in power. The theory of shame-rage loops, to be described below, suggests a more elaborate interpretation: being ashamed of themselves in general, assaultive men are also ashamed of their sexual desires. Experiencing women as haughty and rejecting, sex offenders reject the women they see as rejecting them. Feeling humiliated and powerless (a shame state), they humiliate and dominate in return. But since their shame is unacknowledged, it leads to shame-rage loops that produce compulsive violence against women.

Since unacknowledged shame is common among human beings, it is necessary to construct a more specific theory that formulates the elements that produce sexual aggression. As already indicated, one element is the inability to deal with recurring shame. To explicate that idea:

1. Sex offenders are hypothesized to be quick to take offense or feel insulted and humiliated.

2. They are unable to extricate themselves from continuous loops of shame.

3. For offenders, these loops do not take the form of being ashamed of being ashamed (shame-shame loops), which lead to withdrawal and passivity, but shame anger, which lead to continuous humiliated fury, the emotional basis for contempt and hatred.

4. Finally, these men have no secure social bond to which they can turn to share their pent-up feelings; they are in the zero bond condition. This combination, continuous shame-anger loops and zero bonds, will produce either madness, suicide-homicide, or sexual assault. Since all of the elements in this formulation are counter-intuitive, it will be necessary to review each in turn.

A Theory of Social Bonds

Since sexual assault often takes the form of gang rape (Dark 1990), one would assume that at least offenders in this category would have strong social bonds with their gang. But we propose that gang bonds are not secure, indicating true solidarity, but based on unquestioned loyalty to the gang and to its code of behavior. We argue that a social relationship can be so close and demanding as to be suffocating, and therefore not a secure bond, just as a relationship can be distant and rejecting, also not a secure bond. Gang members, by this definition, can be just as alienated as lone individuals are from others.

We believe that a secure bond strikes a balance between being too close (engulfment) and too far (isolation). Following Elias's (1987) idea of the "I-We" balance, the three states of the bond can be identified by the disposition of pronouns in discourse.

To give the idea of the I-We balance an empirical basis, language can be an indicator of the state of the social bond between two people, by focusing on the use of pronouns, particularly I, you, we, and it. The disposition of these pronouns within a sentence, and the relative weight accorded them, can be used as cues to three different states of the bond - solidarity, and the two opposite forms of alienation, isolation and engulfment. As discussed below, this analysis can be backed up with a study of emotion cues, showing how pride cues signal solidarity, and shame cues signal alienation.

Our approach draws upon and overlaps with Buber's (l958) discussion of I-thou, and many other formulations. What we call solidarity language, (I-I) corresponds exactly to his I-thou. What we call the language of isolation (I-you) corresponds exactly to his I-it. We use different terms because Buber, like most philosophers and social scientists, did not consider the other form of alienation, what Bowen (l978) called fusion (me-I). The idea of engulfment is centrally important in family systems theory (sometimes called emeshment or fusion) but is absent elsewhere in the human sciences. Social scientists usually confound engulfment with solidarity. In engulfed relationships, one or both parties subordinate their own thoughts and feelings to those of the others(s). In solidarity, each party recognizes the sovereignty of the other, but balances respect for the other's position with respect for one's own.

Our use of I and me is quite different than Mead's (l934). His social psychology seems to assume perfect solidarity, without considering the possibility of alienation. In Mead's scheme, the me is made up of the internalized representation of the roles of others. For example, the citizen utilizing a criminal court is prepared by already knowing the role of the judge, the jury, the policeman, jailer, etc.

Mead didn't consider the accuracy with which each member of a society knows the roles of the other members. By ignoring this issue, he evades the issue of imperfect relationships, of alienation. Consider the doctor-patient relationship. Obviously the patient has only a superficial knowledge of the doctor's role, and superficiality of her knowledge can cause impediments to cooperation. For instance, since the patient understands very little of what the doctor knows of the relationship between the patient's illness and the

...