Inside the Mind of a Pedophile: Purity Culture is Pedophile Culture part 3
“Show me a little girl of five or six who can run into her daddy’s heart, sit on his lap, and kiss him any time she likes, and in fifteen or twenty years I will show you a young woman who is emotionally prepared to be a sexually responsive wife.” -Tim and Beverley LaHaye, The Spirit Controlled Family
//
In all of our research, we found this part of the series on how purity culture is actually pedophile culture to be the most disturbing. We dug into peer-reviewed research about the psychology of childhood sex offenders and how they think, which was both heavy and devastating. And yet it’s incredibly important because it helps us understand how purity culture is actually pedophile culture — how the types of beliefs promoted within Christian publishing and by evangelical leaders align, in a disastrous way, with how childhood sex offenders see children, relationships, sex, and power.
We hope that you take care as you read, and we know that this content isn’t for everyone. That being said, we believe that if you can gain more clarity about how offenders think, you’ll see how how purity culture supports a culture that accommodates the kinds of beliefs that drive childhood sexual abuse. Once you learn about these themes, you’ll be able to spot serial child predators anywhere — the first step to stopping them.
//
Religious conservatives like James Dobson have been making unsupported claims for decades about who was most likely to abuse a child in the United States. They’ve continually stated that pornography or queerness or paganism were factors in the abuse of children. But the research paints a different picture. Contrary to what these folks claim, it’s not someone’s gender expression, sexual orientation, or use of pornography that leads to the abuse of children — it’s simply how offenders view children and how they view relationships. Adults who sexually abuse children typically hold certain beliefs about children that they use to justify their abuse, often called implicit theories, cognitive distortions, or offense-supportive cognitions.
Forensic psychologists have investigated these belief patterns and identified several themes that emerge in the mind of a serial child predator. And as we have researched this topic at STRONGWILLED, we’ve found an undeniable pattern of these beliefs showing up in a variety of religious authoritarian parenting manuals and accompanying materials. In fact, patriarchal evangelical communities and the authors they read — like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, John Piper, Voddie Baucham and many more — actually promote these types of cognitive distortions. So today we will be taking a look at these belief systems and how they show up in religious authoritarian writings in the U.S. from 1970-on.
Belief number 1: Children as sexual beings
The most common cognitive distortion among childhood sexual abusers is viewing children as sexual beings, according to studies among offending populations (1). In extreme instances, this includes believing that children desire sex, but can also include attributing any type of sexual behavior or characteristics to a child. In 2007, the APA produced a report on the sexualization of girls which defined sexualization as when any of the following occur:
(1) a person's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
(2) a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy;
(3) a person is sexually objectified - that is, made into a thing for others' sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
(4) sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
This sexualization of children is a hallmark of purity culture, because it puts undo emphasis on a child’s sexuality and their sexual appeal to future partners. It condenses children down to their primary role of staying sexually abstinent until they enter into a life-long heterosexual marriage. The white supremacist patriarchal undertones of this endeavor are hard to overstate, which is why religious authoritarian parenting (RAP) books are obsessed with shaping and developing a child’s (hetero)sexuality while they are still in early childhood. Dobson and other RAP authors continually put an emphasis on the sexuality of children, tweens and teens in a way that was developmentally inappropriate..
In his 1970 book Dare to Discipline James Dobson wrote: “perhaps the most important scientific fact suggested by Freud was his observation that children are not asexual. He stated that sexual gratification begins in the cradle .. . . behavior during childhood is influenced considerably by sexual curiosity and interest, although the happy hormones do not take full charge until early adolescence.” (2) Given what we know about Freud and how he used his theories to discredit survivors of child sexual abuse (and declare they made up their memories of abuse because they sexually desired their fathers/abusers) it is disturbing to see how James Dobson believes this is the most important contribution Freud made to his profession.
And yet the assumption that all children are sexual beings is rife in the RAP books, as well as in the cottage industry of purity culture books (including parenting, materials for teens, pastors and more). For those of us who grew up immersed in these beliefs, it was normal to hear constant discussions of sexuality when it came to children, tweens, and teenagers. It was discussed in youth groups, and in the music, books, and movies aimed at Christian youth ad nauseum, grooming young people to fulfill their divinely-appointed sexual roles assigned to them at birth.
The quote we began this post with is another clear example, where Tim Lahaye (of Left Behind fame) writes in his book, The Spirit Controlled Family: “Show me a little girl of five or six who can run into her daddy’s heart, sit on his lap, and kiss him any time she likes, and in fifteen or twenty years I will show you a young woman who is emotionally prepared to be a sexually responsive wife.” Here, he creates a link between the father-daughter relationship and the young girl’s sexuality. This is a clear example of what psychologists call the sexualization of children, but it is the norm for many of the RAP books we have read and researched for this project.
Lastly, one of the primary aspects of sexualization was a continual and persistent emphasis on the virginity of children of any gender. However, as is often the case in patriarchal spaces, the weight of virginity fell on the shoulders of girls or people socialized as female. For many young women in religious authoritarian spaces, they were taught to equate their sense of worth on their ability to abstain from sex to keep their “virginity” intact for their husband — and were actually encouraged to pledge their sexuality to their fathers until such a time as he allowed them to be married. For people who grew up in evangelicalism in the 1990s and beyond, tweens and teens were encouraged to identify with their sexuality and purity by wearing “promise” rings. These rings served multiple purposes, symbolizing how a teenager should give up their bodily autonomy and find identity in making a pledge to abstain from sexual activity until marriage — usually making these pledges to their parents, their church, and to themselves.
James Dobson is perhaps the first of the popular modern religious authoritarian parenting authors to promote the idea of a father giving his daughter a piece of jewelry in a ritual focused on sexuality. In the earliest edition of Dobson’s book Dare to Discipline in 1970 he writes, “I hope to give my daughter a small, gold key on her tenth birthday. It will be attached to a chain to be worn around her neck, and will represent the key to her heart. Perhaps she will give that key to one man only — the one who will share her love through the remainder of her life.” In the updated version Dobson remarks that he did give his daughter Danae a chain with a key on it, and that she kept her vow (Danae Dobson never married, and presumably still wears the necklace she was given 50 years ago). But in the updated version, Dobson encourages other parents to purchase jewelry for their children to serve as a constant reminder of what God wants for them sexually. And, of course, you could purchase the purity jewelry Dobson recommended from Focus on the Family.
Belief number 2: Romanticizing the Father/Daughter relationship
While child sexual offenders can be driven by a variety of thoughts about sexual abuse such as objectification of children or sadomasochism, research shows that the most common theme among abusers is a desire for an intimate or romantic relationship with children. And while it is taboo to talk about, the prevalence of father-daughter incest has often been a secret hiding in plain sight — and psychologists from Freud to James Dobson have done everything they could to protect the powerful men who abuse their children.
Viewing father-daughter relationships through a romantic lens is one of the largest drivers of incest. Survivors of incest often report that their fathers rationalized abusing them as a “stand-in spouse,” when they felt distance in their marriages. Plus, abusers often believe they are helping children by giving them a romantic experience. While it seems unthinkable to non-abusers that offenders could view sexual abuse as a romantic, mutual, beneficial encounter, it’s unfortunately incredibly common.
A related dynamic often present in offender psychology is a concept titled Intimacy-sex confusion, where abusers confuse emotional intimacy and sexual activity, which is very common among CSA offenders (3). They are more likely to conflate the two, supporting their rationale for the abuse: sexual intimacy fosters emotional intimacy, and emotional intimacy calls for sexual intimacy. It’s important for communities to not conflate intimacy between parent and child with the type of sexual intimacy between spouses — and yet, this line is often blurred in many purity culture materials.
Despite these common psychological narratives among sexual abusers — that offenders fantasize about romantic interactions with children, turn to children as a stand-in spouse during marriage difficulties, and often blur the lines between emotional and sexual intimacy with children — evangelical books often encouraged fathers to take a husband-like role with their daughters, patterning their relationship after marital intimacy. Fathers are often referred to as the “first man” in her life, and compared to boyfriends or husbands, making an inappropriate connection between the father-child relationship and marriage.
Any patriarchal framework that promotes these blurred lines without also talking about potential abuses of power is setting up children to be exploited. As Judith Herman writes “Father-daughter incest is not only the type of incest most frequently reported but also represents a paradigm of female sexual victimization. The relationship between father and daughter, adult male and female child, is one of the most unequal relationships imaginable. It is no accident that incest occurs most often precisely in the relationship where the female is most powerless.” (4)
James Dobson’s participation in the Meese Comission on pornography confirms that he was informed about the prevalence of father-daughter incest and intrafamilial sexual violence, which makes it all the more troubling that he chose to focus on this relationship in particular in multiple books, including Dads and Daughters, Bringing up Girls, and more. Dobson's organization Focus on the Family also published dozens and dozens of books on this same theme, including titles like She Calls Me Daddy: Seven Principles for Building the Complete Daughter, Always Daddy’s Girl, Daddy Daughter Dates, and more (all of which we shall discuss in part 4 of this series). Not only that, but the founder of the Purity Ball movement (in which young girls dress up and attend a ball with their father where they pledge their purity to him and to God until they get married) began his career at Focus on the Family before starting his global purity ball organization based out of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Encouraging these types of interactions was a part of Focus on the Family’s work from the beginning. In Dobson’s Bringing up Girls, there’s a passage that clearly encourages men to approach fatherhood as fulfilling the role of their daughter’s first romantic partner, and blurs the boundaries between parenthood and romantic partnership:
“[Your father] was the first man you flirted with, the first man you wanted to cuddle and kiss you, the first man to prize you as very special among all other girls. All these experiences with your father were vital to nurturing…your femininity. The fawning attention of a father for his daughter prepares her for her uniquely feminine role as a girlfriend, fiance and wife.” (5)
Elsewhere in the book, Dobson again places father in the same category of future romantic partners, blurring the lines between romance and parenthood:
“Few people realize just how intense a girl’s desire is to connect with the ‘first man’ in her life. If he was absent, or if he is there but not engaged, she will struggle with that vacuum, in some cases for the rest of her life.”
Experts in sexual abuse, like Herman mentioned above, have known for decades that sexual abusers create narratives about the “special bond” between a father and daughter. And yet, Dobson, along with the whole Christian publishing industry, actively promoted this narrative. In a world where girls need communities to encourage clear boundaries between fathers and daughters, Dobson’s work only served to blur those lines. These beliefs, coupled with an obsession with parenting methods designed to break the will of children, led to all sorts of abuse occurring within Christian homes -- all the while giving serial child predators the religious and philosophical framework necessary to exploit and prey on children.
Just one page from James Dobson’s book called Dad’s and Daughters, which he writes is his “obsession.”
Belief number 3: Children Need Help Developing Heterosexuality
A common justification that CSA offenders use is that they are offending for the benefit of the child, often to help them learn about sexuality. This can include talking to children about sex in inappropriate ways, or the offender believing that they should give the child a sexual experience to help them develop their sexuality. Sexual abusers may give rationalizations like, “It wasn’t for my enjoyment, I wanted to support them in developing and learning about their sexuality.” (6)
In purity culture literature, there is continuous encouragement for fathers (or other men, including uncles, family friends, pastors and men in the community) to engage with their daughters as women, in order to develop their sexual and gender identity. For example, in Dobson’s Bringing Up Girls, it is stated that, “when a father does not respond to his daughter’s femininity, she is stunted in her development.” (7) There are also countless reminders to fathers to touch their daughters as their bodies grow, and these writers remind fathers that even if they are attracted to their own daughters, that they should continue to embrace them — for their own good. (8)
While there is a disproportionately large amount of instruction for how fathers can help their daughters develop their femininity, boys are not exempt from the perceived need to develop heterosexuality. Dobson encourages fathers to take their sons into the shower to show them, “Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.” (9) This kind of approach, that exposing children to adult genitalia, for their own good, is the sort of thinking that CSA offenders often employ to justify their abuse.
For many religious authoritarian parenting experts, they justify these actions as a way of teaching children heteronormativity. There are overt and covert references to children turning out gay if you don’t give your child enough explicit instruction on opposite gender sexual relationships. It’s this kind of intense focus on shaping a child’s sexual development through external interactions with adults that can bolster the narratives used by sexual offenders, promoting the belief that adults need to engage in sexual ways with children to develop heterosexuality.
Putting such emphasis (and anxiety) on developing heterosexuality puts kids at risk for abuse. For example, in Raising a Young Modern-Day Princess, published in 2016, the authors encourage communities to play matchmaker to connect girls with men in their life, such as “a good family friend who connects with your daughter,” writing, “Little girls look to their dads or other males for approval and love. Our prayer is that if a girl’s birth father is unavailable, then a step-in-dad will become a part of her life. God is calling many men to become ‘fathers to the fatherless.’”(10) Rather than addressing the particular risks of a male “family friend who connects with your daughter,” (a red flag that should give parents pause) the authors spiritualize and ordain this dynamic. It’s another example of how Christian communities fail to discuss the actual risks and safeguards needed to protect children. Instead, they promote the belief that men within the Christian community are to be trusted and that it is normal for adult men to seek out relationships with young women.
Belief number 4: Children Are Little Adults
This last cognitive distortion doesn’t include explicit sexualization, but is often a pillar in supporting all kinds of abuse against children: the belief that children are on the same level developmentally as adults. The MOLEST scale shows that often abusers endorse the statement, “Some children are more adult-like than other children.” (11) Child sexual offenders often view children as having more self-awareness and decision-making capacity than they do. Research also supports the notion that sex offenders are less likely to empathize with their victims, and project their own meaning onto children’s behavior — such as viewing affection, curiosity, or attention-seeking as evidence of sexual intent or initiation. (12)
FBI special agent Kenneth Lannings, who testified multiple times for the Meese Commission, reported after decades of studying the patterns of sexual abusers that, “My experience has been that 95 percent of pedophiles who have admitted to molesting children will tell you they molest children for the same reason. They molest children because the children want it.” (13) This statement is undergirded by the belief that children are capable of making sexual decisions for themselves and communicating in an adult manner, two prerequisites for consensual sex, and is upheld by the idea that children are just like adults.
It is this kind of rationale that is often used by sexual abusers who don’t consider developmental factors like impulsivity, or naturally appropriate behavior when it comes to children interacting with them. And unfortunately, people like James Dobson taught parents that children are as sinful as a fully-grown adult as a justification for using corporal punishment on them. The cornerstone of Dobson’s best-selling abusive parenting methods rested on him getting parents to buy into the idea (or perhaps reinforcing an already-held belief) that small children need to be punished because they are making rational, self-aware decisions to disobey, ignoring any very important developmental context. Dobson and other RAP authors routinely assured parents that children were “begging” to be disciplined and that parents should be happy to comply.
Like most CSA offenders, religious authoritarian parenting authors taught people to dismiss or ignore power dynamics in the parent-child relationship and used the Christian doctrine of original sin to make the case that there was no real difference in maturity levels or a need for corporal punishment. And as we made the case in chapter 16, this leads to a recipe for abuse in patriarchal authoritarian homes, time and time again.
What does this mean?
In the 1980s, James Dobson was informed over and over again by the premiere experts in the field on what profiles of people were most likely to abuse and sexually exploit children. As a child psychologist and popular parenting author, he could have warned religious communities about how to spot red flags and he could have helped implement parenting methods and policies that would protect children.
Instead, he failed to do anything that would keep children safe from abusers — and even worse, he created a whole movement of books, teachings, events, and magazines that supported the beliefs that child sexual offenders could use to justify their harm to children. Within the framework of a patriarchal authoritarian hierarchy, he promoted the sexualization of children, continually romanticized the father/daughter relationships, encouraged parents to actively shape their children’s heterosexuality, and assigned adult intent to children inappropriate to their developmental context. He promoted the very cognitive distortions that pedophiles hold, all while passing himself off as a champion of the family.
While this does not mean that every person who utilized Dobson’s parenting methods — or that of the dozens and dozens of copycat authors — was a pedophile, it means that his work created situations where predators could not only abuse children but where they could get away with it. Because one of the other hallmarks of serial child predators is the large number of victims they abuse unless they are stopped.
As patriarchal male leadership — from Hollywood to Washington D.C. to Evangelical Christianity — continues to fail children and protect serial predators, it is time for us to do the work that Dr. Dobson refused to do. We are committed to educating people on the hallmarks of serial child predators because they continue to be a risk to children everywhere. By understanding some of the hallmarks of their cognitive distortions, we can all be better equipped to spot the red flags of serial child predators. No matter how much religious language they hide behind.
//
In part 4 we’ll look at a phenomenon that occurs among pedophiles in which they create content that appeals sexually to them, yet exists in plain sight — we’ve seen this at Nickelodeon, Jeffrey Epstein’s house, and now we want to examine some purity culture materials with this framework in mind.
Thank you for your support. Without readers like you sharing and supporting our work, this would not be possible.
Endnotes:
Marziano et al., 2005
1970 edition of Dare to Discipline p. 182
Gannon TA, Keown K, Rose MR. An examination of current psychometric assessments of child molesters' offense-supportive beliefs using Ward's implicit theories. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2009 Jun;53(3):316-33.
Judith Herman Father-Daughter Incest p. 27
James Dobson Bringing Up Girls p. 89
We recently discussed the movie Spotlight on our podcast, and in one scene an abusive priest flatly admits he molested children, and then adds, “Yes, yes, but as I said, I never got any pleasure from it. That’s important to understand.”
Bringing up Girls p. 89
Bringing Up Girls p. 94-95
James Dobson, Bringing up Boys p. 120
Hannah & Whiting, 2016, p. xxxxiii-xxiiv.
Bumby, K. M. (1996). MOLEST Scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests
Moulden HM, Firestone P, Marshall WL (2020) Social Competence in Men Who Sexually Offend Against Children: Testing an Integrated Model. JSM Sexual Med 4(6): 1050.
Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Final Report Part 1 (1986). Accessed here.