Capture bond

(See capture-bonding for the unrelated evolutionary psychology term)

NOTE: This article is a repository of the material that Sadi Carnot added to the Evolutionary psychology related capture bonding article. All of Sadi Carnot's edits are now under review. See [http://en. .org/wiki/ :Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadi_Carnot] Keith Henson.

Origin of terms
In abnormal psychology, capture bond is a term used to define the bonding that in some instances develops between the captor and captive. The term stems from the 1973 case of a Swedish woman who became so attached to one of the bank robbers who held her hostage that she broke her engagement to her former lover and remained bonded, or in bondage, to her former captor while he served time in prison.

Origins of use
In 1986 psychologist John Money used the concept to explain abnormal development of lovemaps. In his 1986 book Lovemaps, for example, Money stated:

Abnormal psychology
In 1986, psychologist John Money applied the concept of lovemaps, i.e. neurological bonding predispositions accumulated during youth though association, to the capture-bonding phenomenon. According to Money, "For the average person it is an enigma that a wife would stay married for 25 years to a husband whose paraphilic sadism was always injuriously abusive; or that an abducted ten year old boy would pass up many opportunities for escape for this pedophilic abductor and stay with him after witnessing the lust murder of another boy his own age … this is referred to as Stockholm syndrome, defined as the bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive, or terrorist and hostage …this syndrome, more broadly defined, may be regarded as applying across the board to all of the paraphilias in which one partner exercises paraphilic power and the other becomes collusionally-bonded to the paraphile as an accomplice.”

Money uses the 1976 Baltimore pedophilic lust murder Arthur Goode, who at the age of twenty abducted a newsboy from a professional family and co-opted him as his boy lover. The child had opportunities to escape, even after he was witness to the lust murder of another boy his own age. It was only after the police were notified, that he could disengage himself from the mysterious bond with his abductor. Hence, according to Money, “A kidnapped sexual partner who foregoes opportunity for escape remains in a strong bond of attachment to the kidnapper. Until the bond is broken by outside intervention, it persists with all the defiant resistance of the phylism of infatuation and the limerent love affair.”

:Speaking as the child mentioned, I Billy Arthes, can tell you with certainty that I was not given any opportunity to escape. I was kidnapped, held forcefully against my will. I did try to escape,more than once, and was choked until I passed out, more than once. Arthur Goode threatened to kill me and my family and I only further believed him after I was forced to watch the willful and brutal murder of a child. Arthur Goode failed to mention the tactics he used to invoke terror in a ten year old boy. John Waters never contacted me only the convicted molester and murderer. John Waters chose to publish his words not mine. I can tell you what happen and how I felt because I was there. John Waters was not. Neither was John Money. I had NO bond with Arthur Goode. There was NO attachment. It was my testimony in two murder trials that convicted Arthur Goode. I was happy to hear when fried in "old Sparky" and would have thrown the switch myself if given the chance. To even suggest I had a bond or attachment to Arthur Goode is absurd. I was there and I did not see John Waters nor John Money.

Essentially, the lovemap theory entails that during early childhood development people develop neurological “maps” as they associate to their surroundings. Resultantly, as adults, those who have experienced abnormal development in youth will have the tendency to “bond” stronger in similar abnormal situations. Hence, if one was made to feel predisposed towards the “captive” lifestyle in youth by their “captor” surrogates, friends, or parents then later in life he or she will have a greater tendency to sink into the captive-bond.

Animal psychology

In animal psychology, the theory of capture bonding is used to explain various situations of infanticide, such as in lion or gorilla social systems, where a new alpha male takes over the troop and in doing so kills off all of the offspring. The females then, invariably bond to the new male and reproduce a new litter with him. Evolutionary psychologist Matt Ridley, in his 2003 book The Agile Gene - How Nature Turns On Nurture, explains that infanticide is common among gorillas, as it is among primates. A bachelor male, according to Ridley, will infiltrate a harem, grab a baby, and kill it. This has two affects on the baby's mother, apart from causing her great, though transient, distress. First, according to Ridley, "by halting her lactation it brings her back into estrus; second, it persuades her that she needs a new harem master who is better at protecting her babies. And who better to choose than the raider? So she leaves her mate and marries the baby's killer." This is a form of pair-bond resulting from a tribe or troop takeover in which the females are, so to say, “captured” and converted into new reproducing brides.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu