Captain America [View all]

[H2O Man]

“The meaning of a word is its usage.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein; Philosophical Investigations


The accusations against Roy Moore provide an unexpected, though not surprising, gift to the Democratic Party. They also come at a time when, beyond politics, there is a growing social awareness of the unacceptable dynamics that have allowed predators to use (or attempt to use) “power” to advance unwanted sexual advances. Thus, in order to be able to properly use the Moore situation for more than simple political benefit, I thought it might be of interest to discuss, as objectively as possible, some of the dynamics in this case in greater detail. As always, there will be some who disagree on some points, or interpret specific information differently; this is a good thing, and has the potential to lead to a more valuable discussion than my ramblings.

Wittgenstein's definition of words came to mind when I watched coverage of this latest republican “sex scandal.” Numerous reporters and guests panelists have referred to Moore's crime against a 14-year old as pedophilia. This is good, because that is the meaning of the word in common usage. It provides an accurate description for the general public. It is not the correct term within the field of psychiatry, though many in the treatment field find that the legal community – police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges – often use the word in conversations with them.

Most of the treatment community make use of chronophilia, as coined by John Money in identifying unhealthy, primary age groups various offenders are sexually attracted to. Pedophilia is when an adult has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Roy Moore's targeting a 14-year old is an example of ephebphilia, as identified by Glueck in 1955, as a primary or exclusive interest in pubescent (or post-pubescent) teenagers.

While the roots of both tend to have areas of overlap, there are also distinct features. I think it may be interesting to consider Moore loosely in this context. Although I don't know a lot about him, what I do know seems to point to a range of personality disturbance that I used to encounter in work. I did not run any of the sexual abuse groups (I did jail and domestic violence groups), I encountered a number of offenders on my individual case load. And I coordinated treatment with the co-workers who ran those groups.

What makes a man as rigid and self-righteous as a Roy Moore? It might be useful to consider that in terms of what Dr. Michael Stone refers to as Features 1 and 2, which are thought patterns and behaviors that result. Let's take note that he speaks of Susan Neiman's gradation of behaviors that range from bad to very bad to evil. This allows us to consider how society views some behaviors today differently from the way the same behaviors were viewed in past eras, including within different contexts. This does not make excuses for past practices, but rather suggests that cultural progress is being made in some instances.

What I looked for in Moore's past is instances where, from the viewpoint of others, his thinking was rigid, and that this had an impact upon his relationship with those other people. I found it interesting that he attended military schools in his late teens, and then became an officer. Before serving in Vietnam, he was in the military police. In Vietnam, he was again in the military police, and was despised by others who found him to be too strict. He was given the nickname “Captain America” sue to his rigidity. Moore would report that, after being threatened with fragging, he slept on bales of straw for protection.

I would venture that this is an example of how Moore's Feature 1 thinking led to Feature 2 behaviors that resulted in others viewing him as a rigid, and who aggressively sought to exercise control over other people's behaviors.

Another part of Moore's thinking that is rigid, and hence results in aggressive behaviors upon his part that seek to control others, is found in his religious belief system. It is unclear (to me) if this was rooted in part in his childhood experiences. However, it is abundantly clear that his religious views have a co-morbidity with his rigid personality type. That toxic combination results in his self-identification as a morality-law enforcer.

What are the chances of such a geek having a healthy belief system regarding sexuality, and thus healthy sexual experiences? Just my opinion, but I'll speculate the chances are mighty low to nonexistent.

There are a number of factors in an adult sex offender such as Moore targeting a 14-year old for his personal satisfaction. They do not include a 32-year old assistant district attorney being comfortable with sexual relations with someone his own age. One can safely speculate that he was not confident he could sexually satisfy an adult. Thus, Moore abused his position of power to prey upon a kid.

On his Feature 1, Moore lacks the capacity to objectively evaluate what a terrible thing he did. His law and order personality, combined with his sick religious beliefs, do not allow for his being conscious of his guilt. Rather, in a ironic twist of a most-twisted mind, he consciously convinces himself that it was not him that molested a 14-year old. And it's no surprise – none – who or what he does blame.

Moore convinced himself that two sentences from Romans, found in chapter 7, lines 17 and 20, identify the real cause: “It is no longer I who am doing this evil, but the sin living in me. ...And if I do what I don't want to do, it is not I who do it, but the sin which lives in me.” The more out of touch Moore becomes with the reality of his own disgusting self, the more those Feature 1 ideas convince him that it is his role to become a modern-day prophet from the Old Testicle. And, indeed, we see how that delusional self-concept – a man who claims the moral authority to speak for “God,” and to judge others – has translated into his behaviors throughout his adulthood.

Thus, a man who really should have been incarcerated is able to climb the ladder from assistant DA to serve twice as a highest judge in his state. From this position, of which he was twice removed, he spews hatred and filth, attacking gays and lesbians, not mere attempting to deny them marriage equality, but to make them “illegal.” He attacks Islam, and advocates denying Muslims from holding elective office. He was big on the “birther” nonsense. And like Trump, he's a big fan of Putin.

Other possible criminal behaviors include paying himself well over a million dollars from his own non-profit “Foundation for Moral Law,” and using its other funds to run his political campaigns. (Washington Post)

Almost as disgusting has been some of his supporters to either normalize his behaviors, or to place them in that “Mary and Joseph” context, and to use the “Roy's being attacked by pure evil!” bit in their latest fund-raising attempts. And today, his brother actually compared the news reports to the crucifixion of Jesus.

It's unsettling to know that Roy Moore could ever win any election, much less in a state-wide contest. It's more disturbing to think he might have won a seat in the US Senate – indeed, he still might. We should all be doing our best to help his opponent, Doug Jones, win. It doesn't matter if you think he is a liberal or moderate Democrat. He has to win. Really.

We also have an opportunity to reach people on more that a political level. People need to understand that many variations and gradations of the more extreme Moore pathology exist in our society. And society as a whole benefits from confronting it.

Thank you to anyone who might have read this far!
H2O Man