Michael M. Griesemer - translated, quoted and summarized

Ausmass und Auswirkungen massenmedialer Desinformation zum Stand der Wissenschaften über sexuellen Kindesmissbrauch - am Beispiel einer tragischen klinischen Entwicklunsabweichung; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Humane Sexualität e.V., Gießen, 2004


This essay discusses the nowadays mostly hated phenomenon with which a psychologist can be engaged in, in a nowadays rare perspective: pedophilia. 


Should we as society in this period of prosecution deal with people with a psychical development disorder in the same way? [... summarized:] As social scientists? As psychologists? What has happened in society and research, that we need to ask this ethical question? What has happened since we as psychologists  have 'forgotten' this crucial question, since we as psychologists about people with a psychical disorder speak as a physician about patients and as criminologists about social outsiders? 

1. Changing the way of speaking in two periods

If I want to distinguish two periods [...], I mark 1987 as the dividing line. 
[Summarized:] Since that year, the media weekly mentioned sexual abuse of children and pedophilia, before scarcely known by society and psychologists, presented as a monstrosity. 

The other period I distinguish starts in 1950 with Kinsey's report, goes via the permissive year 1968 to the early eighties with its welfare. And than, [after 1987], the period of the fall of the communists in the East [of Germany] until 2003. 

There are significant differences in the way of speaking in both periods, a difference that has had consequences for our work as psychologists [...]. Also psychologists felt a pressure to prosecute in our work, and had to adapt their way of speaking. 

[... Examples from both periods ...] 

I may label the generation between 1950 and 1978 and the culture of their discussion on this knotty problem as humanistic, and the same after 1987 as characterized by a concentration on sexuality and punishment
The present-day speech in professional circles is not different from the speech in the media. The characteristics are: 

The omnipresent danger; 
indignant demagogic language; 
sexually demonizing stereotyping of human beings 
and, as a rhetoric means with great effect: 
a 'final traumatology' - final in a double sense:
final in view of the idea of life-long, maybe incurable effects and symptoms by children, and 
final also in the meaning purposive -
for example for feministic aims, by an evocative image of children left to their own fate, following the model of the sexually oppressed woman, [thus] with maximizing the balances of the perpetrator, the victim and the symptoms, as is usual in research since than. 

2. Results of the new trend in the research area

About political abuse of social-scientific data 

How can we explain the great contrast concerning pedophilia in the two periods in Germany and its discussion culture? 

2.1 Society's dynamics and converging of interests

A converging of interests has dramatically quick come over the scientific field, and has used it in a sensational way. 


The commercial media made sex and crime with children a commercial product, and asked researchers to produce the appropriate data. 
Politicians could profile themselves with the emotional theme of sexual abuse of children. 


For feminism, pedophilia became a symbol for the man as a perpetrator, the child became a substitute for the oppressed woman, whose story not was believed. 
For conservatism, pedophilia was an example of the moral degeneracy in society. 
For Communism, used the theme for a new identity. 'Exploitation' became old-fashioned, but add the word 'sexual' to it, and there you have 'the pedophile 'as ' 'neo-imperialistic exploitation of western societies'. 
Churches and religions took the theme within their general taboo on sexuality. 


Intellectuals of every persuasion used sexual abuse of children as a syndrome of the lying bourgeoisie with its abuse within the family - later projected on the pedophiles, already outlawed by the same bourgeoisie. 
Gays and lesbians [summarized:] created openly distance from others with a deviant orientation. Their profit was to be better accepted by society. 
[Summarized: People with homophobia used the theme, especially man-boy relationships, to attack all gays. 
Radical right-wing people used 'the pedophile' as weak, not cowardly, degenerated and filthy perverts. 
[Summarized:] Freudian psychoanalysts had their renaissance with their unconscious trauma's and life-long symptoms of the victims. 


[Summarized:] Note that the discussion first concerned the abuse within the family, but in the second period concentrated upon 'the pedophile' outside the family. In the second period, 'family  values' were the motive of the quick introduction of new more severe laws. 

Summary [of the author]

Every group in society had its own interests to cook their own brew - research, publicity, popularity, politics - of the psychological phenomenon 'pedophilia'. This resulted in an unprecedented converging of interests, pressing on a factually tragic phenomenon. This all inflicted itself on a de-individualizing demonization of a social minority. Or, psychologically spoken, it resulted in a criminal hunt on people with a specific psychic disorder. 

2.2  Effects on terminology


Even a seemingly neutral scientific term is not neutral and also not free of implications - which already linguistically hinder any reflection: sexual abuse. The term implies a brutal notion, that consequently is projected on the human. Only implements can be abused. Moreover, the concept sexual abuse implies the existence of a kind of right sexual use of children, otherwise the concept is empty. But also here we see the use as is the child an implement, the same act that passionately is attacked. It is a tricky concept that, in combination with child, suggests a violent act on a passive and static asexual person. The concept leads astray to mistake the phenomenon as reality. [....] 

2.3. A Methodology of the Fall

[...] Suddenly, dramatic symptoms were mentioned, not based on continue research, but as an axiom that neglects the methodological standards of research. Suddenly, there was a breach in the research process, a change [of paradigm] without any comment [... and] without any room for relativizing data. 


In 92% of the studies of abuse symptoms by children, are the notorious Rosental and Pygmalion effects not controlled. [...] Strikingly often the blunder is made to interpret correlations as  causal connections - in only one selective direction. 

In the case of a correlation between variable A (sexual conduct) an B (sexual offense), there are five interpretations possible. Usually, one chooses an interpretation without any thinking about it. [...] There might be a variable C that causes the correlation between A and B. [...]
1) A causes B, 
2) B causes A,
3) Moderator variable C creates the correlation between A and B,
4) A and B are seen together by chance, and
5) A and B influence each other reciprocally.

[Summarized:] Several symptoms might be caused by the intervention after sexual acts are discovered and thus be seen together and correlating, but not caused by the sexual act itself.

Two low points of the trend breach must be mentioned: 
The trend to pathologize the victim, a trend that burdens the children themselves, and 
the spectre of the smear campaigns against scientists. 

[... For example - summarized:] The Meta-analyse by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) and its condemnation by the USA Congress in 1999. 


Julia Erikson [...] has written about the meta-analysis as "Sexual liberation's last frontier". In 2002, she wrote: "Since than, the president of my university got bombed with letters, telephone calls and e-mails, in which the university was accused to give room to 'a dangerous pedophile' ". And Prof. P. Okami wrote: "I have seen that, if one writes about pedophilia, one has first to condemn it, in order to be taken for serious, and not to be suspected to be a pedophile oneself." 

[... Summarized:] Christian Spoden mentions a boy who scold to him and accused him of 'child abuse'. Spoden is sure that the anger of the boy is not directed to him, but is a transfer from the sexual abuser to the therapist. Once, the boy ensconced himself on the therapist's lap and opens his shirt. Now, Spoden is sure that the boy has been sexualized. He wrote: "It is difficult to convince them that they are traumatized." 
However, if there really had been a trauma, the same behavior had been avoided, as behavioral theory says. The experience of the boy could have been a positive one. He mentions that the boy refuses to speak about 'abuse'. 

Factually, all conclusions about causality ('Abuse causes symptom X') are scientifically not correct and empirically impossible,  because the only method is not allowed here: the experiment. [... Summarized:] Scientists in this field have to live with this limitation, and must therefore be very careful in their interpretations and conclusions.

[Summarized:] Another critical issue is that the central concept, seen as the causing factor, abuse, is often not or quite careless defined. Moreover, age groups are not defined: every victim is "a child". Also, types of (sexual) acts are often not defined or even mentioned. Thus, rape of a five-year old girl by a neighbor is put in the same category as homo-erotic play between a boy of fifteen and a man. Also, the kind of relationship is often not mentioned and taken into consideration. Thus, murders and pedophiles, incest fathers and relationships between runaways and an adult - are all put in the same category.

There is also a problem: observing, a problem that causes the greatest research problem. In psychological experiments can be observed what the researcher want to know: the independent variable. But by researching abuse, direct observation of the facts is not possible. [...] There is no objective 'photo' or 'film' that might help us to select traumatizing events and to reach consensus about what is observed. The only exception are records made by pedophile themselves - but those are otherwise used, but never for research. 

What has happened, is always told by someone - [summarized:] and often in quite dramatic wording. Those narratives might be not objective. We don't know what really has happened. The type of information is 'someone has told me that someone has told me his subjective experience'. 

Three factors make research even more difficult:

The time factor: the events told about usually has happened a quite long time before. 
The emotional factor: the narrative is about a subjective experience and is difficult to transform in an objective image. 
The terminological factor: [...] being asked to judge about "child sexual abuse" gives other responses than being asked about "seducing a 14-year-old". 

[...] In the recent victimology, one concludes to inevitable and incurable harm, independent of what really has happened. The basis are not the data, but interpretation of the data.  

[Two examples - summarized:] An experience, told as a positive event, 'must' be interpreted as a "rationalization" or a "positive misinterpretation" (in Teegen 1993). And in Kloiber (1994): the author interprets a lack of negative effects after man-boy experiences as the effect of the male culture to not admit problems. His 'reasoning' seems to be: 'if a girl has negative feelings after seduce by her father, than a boy must have the same negative feelings by seduce by a man. If not, the boy hides his feelings. Kloiber puts 'events without bodily contact, sexual hug and kissing' in the category 'sexual violence'. Kloiber also says that those who criticizes his writings will play down the seriousness of the effects of the abuse of children.

Another effect of the methodological errors, there is a lot of literature that, without any critical thinking, emphasis that children are unripe and easily to manipulate by adults - if even 16-year-olds are asexual beings. This style of literature [...] gives an emotive bipartition Little child and monster. To make the monster, one broadens the concept 'violence'. [...]

3. Effects of the change on diagnosis and therapy 

[Summarized:] The social stigmatizing since 1987 has ethical effects and also practical effects in three ways. 

3.1 The assessment of such people

Step by step - by a gulf of more severe laws since 1993 - more and more possibilities are added to prove individual guilt, especially for pedophiles. 
[...] A general 'expectation of harm' can lead to conviction of a person, without any need to prove the harm in an individual case. So, each 'sexual act', even without any body contact, can be punished without any reference to the way the contact is experienced by the contact partners. 
The grade of maturity if the minor and consent do no longer play a role. The basic point for conviction is, in every case, the proof of a sexual act and the difference in age. [...] 
If we have to report a diagnosis of a pedophile, there is a problem with the prognosis of recidivism. We are obliged to view even cordial and consensual contacts with adolescents as recidivism. So, we are forced to label people with a born-in love orientation with an unavoidable recidivism prognosis. Often enough, those contacts are cordial and consensual. Most pedophiles or homosexual ephebophiles are only peacefully searching for love contacts. But now we actually raise the chance for lifelong imprisonment - together with real psychopaths, rapists and hypersexual people. 
[Summarized:] In cases of secondary pedophiles, we observe, since several recent years, more and more distortions of the brains. [The author gives a list.] This questions the assessment of individual guilt. In earlier years, this has not be seen at all, but now is is seen, those distortions do not lead to questioning the individual guilt, but give the label "mentally distorted sex offender" - with all the consequences for the suspect.

3.2 Therapy for pedophiles

For settled therapist, therapy for pedophiles has become a hot item. One of the bogeys is here the fear for recidivism, for which the therapist might be hold responsible [...] by the local press. 
Fear and generalized distrust [...] evoke therapists to abandon active help. So, prevention is hindered [...]: often people ask me for help because they feel that they  might abuse children and follow their desires. 
Most unprofessional therapies create counter effects if they follow the punitive way of thinking and use the abuse jargon. 
Mistakes of therapists often break the motivation for therapy 
by expressing their latent aversion against the client's disposition, 
by following an indicting theory of cause and effects, or 
by following the image of the media, and so disqualifying their client's feelings of love 
as false, or 
as denial, or 
as smoothing over, or
as a typical fantasy of a pedophilic, thus perfidious character. 
One of the working variables of e therapy is, according to research, authenticity [of the therapist]. However, a therapist becomes incredible if he or she follows the obligated but unscientific model of speaking and thinking, that any body contact with a pedophile causes enduring harm to any child. [...] 
[Summarized:] Frequently, justice inflicts a therapy as a condition to avoid prison. Justice believes that a therapy for primary pedophiles does exist, and we have not told them that this is a false belief. Factually, there are not enough therapists who are able and willing to offer a real sex therapy. The therapy, if started, must fail. The condition is factually impossible. Thus the prosecutor will later on declare that the accused has broken the condition. 
[Summarized:] There is no scientific knowledge of the origins of primary pedophilia. Thus, there is no therapy, only for secondary pedophilia. As a real therapy does not exist, only a 'common sense approach' is possible - with its side effects as 
counter effects, 
damage, or at best 
pretending or playing a double game, induced by the therapists themselves - thus a Pygmalion effect - or in the worst case 
the label 'untreatable', leading to civil commitment. 

3.3 Contact with young victims as witnesses

In the meantime forgotten, denied and in psychological writings made a juridical issue,  are the problems of "de declared victims" (Baurmann) - with all its effects on their situation as involuntary 'victim witness' in court: 
their sexual experiences become public, 
they may be forced to witness against their fathers, or 
to accuse a still loved person of sexual acts that for themselves are a matter of secondary importance. 
[Summarized:] There is a risk on pseudo-memories of afterwards and by suggestion declared traumatic 'events'. 
Stories of others and the court process detach negative experiences from the natural process of coming to terms, and conserve them to a fixed inner picture. The original experience is by suggestion changed and so enlarged unto a negative and traumatic experience. 
A secondary profit is that 'the trauma' is hold responsible for all normal problems in puberty; even if these problems existed before [the sexual experience], they are now falsely seen as symptoms of abuse. 
A socially enforced role as 'the victim', thus always helpless. 
Viewing youth (14-16 years of age) still as 'children' - neglecting the fact that 20% of the girls and of the gay boys actively search for an adult partner. 
For parents, it is nearly impossible to prevent secondary harm (harm by intervention) by choosing for a responsible but not juridical solution of the conflict. The jurisdiction seems only to know the 'victim and (punishable) predator' way of thinking. 
Reactions to the accusation and interrogation during the process are now part of the accusation. Especially in cases of 'declared victims' and loving relationships, this is quite dramatic. For psychologists, it has become impossible to even ask the question what has caused what. [...] 
[Summarized:] 60% of the court trials against pedophiles concern homosexual relationships. Young gay teens have to witness against their adult fellow gays, their possible friends and models, in order to hide their own sexual orientation and so to prevent a coming out in public and family. 
For the young partner, such processes create feelings of de-individualization and loose of self control.  
Especially in cases of fathers and beloved adults, feelings of guilt accompany the telling of a victim narrative under social pressure. 
[Summarized:] In panic, the young person has to keep aloof from the stigmatized accused person - and their own original feelings. A positive testimony would make them 'a friend of a pervert' or an active partner in dirty acts. 
Every declared victim will stigmatize her- or himself from then on as abused, incurable, dirty, dishonored and multiple distorted.

4. Effects of the change on prevention of child sexual abuse

Some effects are already mentioned: [Summarized:]

First, the problems with and the counter effects of therapy are mentioned. One of them is that we, psychologists, have got the role of the extended arm of justice. This hinders a therapy before the law is broken. Because of the leading views, individual therapy is nearly not possible. Those views make us incredible: we have to tell our clients that any sexual experience of any child always will result in a heavy trauma, which opinion conflicts with humanistic science and understanding. Only therapists who offer a standard recidivism prevention therapy deny these conflicts. 
Secondly, with 'prevention of sexual experiences of children', we mean essentially 'prevention of possible harm'. But just the actual punitive practice changes negative experiences into a trauma. Declared victims and victims without a trauma get a secondary trauma by the juridical intervention itself. Possible nuances are disappeared from the laws, the juridical practice and from the psychological knowledge. 

There is a third kind of hinder for prevention of harm. [Summarized:] because of the draconic and public way if handling such cases, the real victims with real harm do not dare to be open. So, the real bad predator is not seen. People with fear for their own pedophile feelings do not dare to ask for help, fearing to be open, fearing to be prosecuted. 

Primary pedophilia is a tragic and irreversible sexual orientation that develops itself in childhood. There is only one way of prevention [...]: early openness of parents, teachers and others who see the early signs of pedophilia before the child's puberty, and then real help by a caring psychological intervention. However, the actual trend of demonizing makes this a taboo that hinders such an openness. Because of that stigma, parents keep silence, shut their eyes, or suppress what they see under social pressure. 

[Summarized:] The author views, basing himself on his research data, primary pedophilia as a weakness in the psychosexual development of the child, which seems to be irreversible after puberty. He explains that there is an age on which children are quite well able to learn reading and writing. If that learning process is hindered during that age, reading and writing will always be difficult for them. Likewise, the age for the psychosexual development is before and during puberty. If that development is hindered, a kind of childish sexual script writes itself in the brain - and keeps being there. The young pedophile feels this, but also sees the societal condemnation of his orientation, and feels to be part of an orwellian society with al its absurdities and doubleness. If family and friends realize his or her orientation, they feel the same conflict between the person and society - and usually the keep silence about it.

[The author continues with:]

If my view on primary pedophilia and the child's development is correct, we should help those children before their development will be irreversible. To do this, the phenomenon has to be freed of its mystification and demonization. What they read, hear and see in the media creates fear and shame, which on turn creates suppression and later on leads to hide themselves. Then, it is too late to help them. 

[Summarized:] There are yearly on an average five murders of children, labeled as "sex murder". But sex is not the motive, the motive is panic, fear of discovery of sexual acts which are taboo. The same taboo creates secrecy in many other cases, and this kind of secrets may be traumatic, more than the acts themselves. Thus, if we would end this taboo, we may prevent murder and traumas. If not, we keep creating them. 

[Summarized:] The author observes that the motive of a predator is no question: it must be a sexual motive, because he is such a monster. In the whole discussion about child sexual abuse, the perception of children is fixated on the supposed view of the predator - actually a projection. 

[Summarized:] Actually, the average of five is low in comparison to the number of murder of women by man. 'Pedophile men' are underrepresented in aggressive crimes. Most of them are not aggressive but shy. Sexual acts before such a murder are often banal. Such crimes are mostly like the eruption of a volcano, after years of silence. The motives projected on the perpetrator are abstract, not the real personal motives. 

[Summarized:] With a look on history, we may conclude that stopping a taboo can safe lives. During eight centuries, most children are murdered by young woman who tried to avoid the shame, or who lived in extreme poverty. As soon as the taboos around shame (sexual intercourse) and poverty were broken, those murders stopped and became very seldom. 
The author adds [summarized] the question if some later murderers had become a murderer if they as a twelve-year old boy had been able to openly speak about their feelings with their father, a pastor or a psychologist. Regrettably, pedophile feelings and behavior on that age is still a great taboo.
This had been, he adds [summarized] far more cheaper than all processes, imprisonment, clinics and therapies (for predator and victim) later on.

[The author continues with:]

[Great clinics and prisons are built now for] what in the media are called "psychically distorted sexual offenders". Nowadays, these terms do not longer refer to serial murders or violent predators, but for lots of quite peaceful pedophiles because of their deviant love orientation. Under the feministic and conservative banners - and with political abuse of my profession - this orientation has got the label violence. So, we now have crimes without victims, false laws that create criminals. And we have love affairs that absurdly are labeled as violence. [...] Since 1987, crimes are created by abandoning the differentiation between artificial created and real, objective and clear sexual crimes against children. The costs of this nonsense are absurd.

5. Nautilus - [Research project]

Nautilus is a research project aimed to reconstruct the psychosexual development of the child. It addresses men and women with any sexual orientation and age between 16 and 70 years. [...]

One of the questions was the first feelings of bodily attraction in the biography, the first sexual activation, the age of the start of puberty, and many in this context relevant data of childhood. The sample exists now of about 150 men and women, among which 50 primary or secondary pedophiles. Except two women, all persons in the sample are men. I want to offer you two results of the project, which will go on. 

5.1. First feelings of bodily attraction

Figure: Age of the first bodily feeling of attraction
Pedophiles vs non-pedophiles

   ↑  0 - 5 - 15 - 20 -25                                             ↑  Age of the respondent

   ↑ Age of the [other] person            6,0 - 6,4 - 6,8 - 7,2 -7,6 - 8,0 - .... etc ... - 22,8

                 ¤ = Primary pedophiles (N=13);    ♦ [open rhomb] = Non-pedophiles (N=45) 

The figure here above gives the data. The horizontal axis mentions the age of the respondents on which this feeling appeared. The vertical axis gives the age of the person to whom the respondents said to have been attracted. 

The respondents have been asked to mention the first person, with age and gender, and then to mention the next four persons to whom one has felt attracted, and on what age of the respondent this had happened. 

In the graphic here above, primary pedophile men are compared with non-pedophile men. The latter, the control group, was matched on relevant criteria with the first group, among others their age. [Thus,] age affects are not found. 

The result, given in the graphic here above, took me by surprise. My original hypothesis was that pedophiles simply start earlier in their lives to be fascinated by other children of the same age, so that the period until puberty was longer. Thus, there might be a chance that in that longer period something might happen that the change to attraction to a more adult body might influence, so that they , by behavioral learning processes, keep fixated on children. 

This hypothesis was not confirmed, as one can see. By both groups, the age of the first feelings of bodily attraction was about nine years of age. Rather, we see another astonishing fact: on the same age in pre-puberty, on which the attraction to boys or girls was reported, already the nine years olds of both groups differ. The later pedophiles distinguish themselves from the control group because their objects of attraction are dramatically younger then themselves - on the average two years younger, while the later non-pedophiles tend to be felt attracted to older children - on average 10,8 years of age. 

Given the data, as now gathered, one might conclude that pedophilia develops itself already on a pre-pubertal age -although we don't know how. My own explanation is that at first an emotional attraction comes into life, based on visual attraction, while later on the attraction gets of a sexual nature. 

[Summarized:] We have to note that in childhood an age difference of, say, two years, is quite great in bodily and mental development, social status, and many more respects. 

A nine-year-old may for a six-year-old fulfill the role of an admired and protecting figure, almost like a substitute father with it authority, and feel himself as competent to protect the affectionate younger friend. I may note that the pedophile respondents described their feelings of attraction to the first younger person not as sexual. What they described was protecting, embracing, fondling. In many clinical self-descriptions of pedophiles, we find an erotic tense as well as (sometimes maybe exaggerated) feelings of attraction and the desire to protect the younger one. This desire to protect comes into life in pre-puberty, thus before puberty adds an erotic or sexual color to it. Thus, it is not correct to label the feelings of those people - of any people - as exclusively sexual. 

5.2 [The great shift since 1987]

To answer some questions, I have split the total sample into two sub samples: 

The first contains people born before 1987, people who grew up in the welfare state.

The second contains people born after 1987 - regrettably only six people between 16 and 18 years of age. 

I did the same with 18 people from the sample of non-pedophile men and women who have told to be declared or actually felt-as-such victims of pedophile interest or sexual acts in childhood. 

For 14 of them, their childhood was before 1987, 

for 4 of them, childhood was after 1987. 

A sample of n=6 and n=4 is too small to compare both groups statistically. I limit myself to let only some of the victims and the pedophiles born after 1987 [and one 'victim' born before 1987] speak for themselves, as they have done in the inquiry. 

From the pedophile sample

Subject 3, 16 years, gay: 
"Since one year, I felt to be gay, and I have tried to kill myself. Then, I was fifteen, and they have publicly said that I was a child molester, because they have cached me with my fourteen-year-old friend."  

Subject 5, 18 years, girl lover: 
"It has cost me lots of courage to tell my message. I can tell nobody that I might be a pedophile, and I hope that you are honest and will not betray me. I don't know how or where to go." 

Subject 6, 15 years, gay-pedophile: 
"Have my parents dared to contact you? I don't know how to explain [my feelings] to them."
(The subject told us that he, since he was twelve, had constantly fallen in love of seven- to ten-year-old boys. While answering the inquiry, he endured fear of discovery.)

In three of the ten scales for 'general stressing factors' ('childhood positive/negative', 'stress because of isolation', and 'psychosexual discouraging experiences'), the average score of these six subjects with their childhood after 1987 differs two standard deviations from the average score of those with their childhood before 1987. Also the scores for 'stress during childhood' were significantly different between the 15-35 age group and the 45-65age group.

From the victims sample

Here below two examples that show a possible difference in coping with the trauma between declared or actual victims before and after 1987.

Subject, 18 years, lesbian:
"I was au pair in France and I have been abused by a soldier, but I had not accused him [if I had known before] how the fanatic French police knew how to manage with him. Afterwards, police officers have excused themselves to me and my family for the way they have interrogated me. I am glad that he is not imprisoned, he happened to be just awkward - and somehow even nice."

Subject, 62 years, married, two children:
"At school, I once was invited by a teacher, who than seduced me - so to say. I don't want to label this as abuse as this word is used. What has grieved me more was that he in the class pretended not to know me anyway. Supposedly out of fear, which I - in the present views - quite well can understand."