Part 1 - Checklist of the 8 Paedophobe Tactics
You, like everyone else, are logical within the boundaries of the knowledge which you have been brought up to believe. I’m sure you are not hysterical. You must realize that a paedophile, like everyone else, is a normal guy who goes to work from 9 till 5 then comes home to watch some T.V. or do some cleaning before going to bed to start the cycle all over again, not the mythical beast of modern times, (created by the modern media,) clouded in clandestine secrecy. For the man on the street this belief forms the basis of his prejudice. In this essay though I have not got the easy (well, easier) option of reassuring you that paedophiles appear to be simply normal caring individuals. You know that they may well be. Your opinion after reading this essay will probably be that that I am blind to the untold harm that paedophiles, who like to believe they are caring, do to children. And for anyone with a knowledge of paedophiles, as opposed to child molesters means that they have an extra set of answers to defend their beliefs with.
Please note that when I have the cheek to tell you what goes on in your own mind, or what your prejudices are, I am only making the best assumption. I don’t know you. This essay may not be appropriate to any prejudices you may hold at all, but I doubt it. Also, when I put words in inverted commas I am indicating that that word is of dubious meaning in most forms of usage, or that that word is only being used in that context to give a demonstration of which word a paedophobe would use under the circumstances, (the word paedophobe meaning somebody who is unjustly prejudiced against a paedophile.)
Below is the first comprehensive list I have compiled of tactics unwittingly employed by the paedophobe during a conversation with me on the topic in question to enable him (O.K. and her,) to retain his blindness.
I will go into more detail below in a minute. I cannot stress just how important it is for you to realize how big a part in arguments these evasion techniques play. I could write a book on each one, (but I’ll spare you this once.) While reading anything, a human thinks constantly about what is being read. While reading, when you notice yourself about to make a major conclusion please return to the above checklist and make sure that the its not a result of any of the described tactics. On the same vein, put simply, people tend to read one point I’m making and automatically make a negative judgment while not having read what comes next which may answer their uncertainties. When they do get to the next bit they then make a negative judgment on that too because they have just missed the truth of the previous bit that leads up to it. For this reason, (and because I structure my sentences with such complexity,) you will need to read this essay a few times to fully understand it.
Please note that in the checklist below any references to paedophile beliefs are purely examples of convenience, the truths of which will be examined later.
Now for the checklist explained:
Continuing to reply to my corrective statements with answers based on a very similar, often superfluous aspect of the previously discredited assumption.
There are many hundreds of petty examples I could give for this point, but I can only give one situation of examples here for the sake of space. Bear in mind that in practice, a conversation will be littered with constant petty examples which when all collected together make one big mess of misunderstanding. Below is an e-mail conversation between ‘Brian’ and a paedophile. Here Goes.
Brian says: I accept the media harassment of paedos, but don't actually think it is unfounded. Children are weaker, smaller, more vulnerable... is this turning you on? I don't know mate, why on earth you'd dream about a ten year old is beyond me.
So Paedophile says: YES, children are weaker, smaller, and more vulnerable, which is why paedophiles are gentler and try to be less threatening in their relations with the opposite sex! Remember my incomprehension of why lovers argue and fight? You remember the gentle femininity of my manner, which lead most people to think I was gay at first! I do of course like to see those paedophiles who use the fact that children are weaker put in prison as much as the next man. (They are a minority I may add, just like most gays are not arse rapists.)
So Brian says: Too true Dan, and the ones that were gave them all a bad name, especially in prisons. So, tell me Dan: gentler than who? Threatening? Who threatens? I don't know who you're making comparisons to, but it ain't me baby. I'm a lover, even though I can fight.
So Paedophile says: And I hate the way that you just don't GET IT. Of course I told you that you should report things 'like that' to the police when I told you about that website with rape I reported. I never lied to you or Steve AT ALL. Did you learn nothing about the personality of a paedophile when we were friends at CPP? I would not be a child lover if I could get some sort of pleasure out of seeing a child in distress.
So he says: And I do get it. You think you’ll never fall victim to sexual frustration, never develop a dark, secret side that exploits people, and yes, I have exploited people myself. I try not to do it, but I’ve only got better at that with age and maturity. Frankly, it’s harder to avoid being exploited, which is something I worry about with these kids.
So Paedophile says: On the subject of pressurizing, although you may have tried it, it still doesn't change the fact that I haven't. It is possible. Lewis Carroll died a virgin. A minority of paedophiles do end up persuading kids to a certain extent, instead of letting them bring up the subject of sex first, but is it really a reason to harass paedophiles as a whole, any more than it would be to harass a normal heterosexual for using persuasion, as you did. On the whole, paedophilia is not harmful. You say that persuasion is in itself a form of abuse? Does that mean that you realize that persuading a child that sex is NOT a good idea is also abusive? Remember, there is nothing innately wrong with sex. Its how we express sexuality that can be wrong.
And he finishes with: I don't
care if you feel this is something you can justify with arguments, I strongly
disagree with your points, your line of argument and your conclusion.
So, notice that even his first reply is irrelevant, but sounds good simply because it continues to have a go at the paedophile. Why does the fact that Brian himself feels that he is not less gentle than his opponent in argument affect the main point that he is relatively gentle in general, which is obviously what he was trying to say. The technicalities of how the paedophile worded it were not too important. The point he was making was obvious.
Interpreting what I am clearly saying as meaning something similar which better fits the popular portrayal of the paedophile.
I remember conversations with people in which I explain that paedophilic sex is about love, and not about forcing sex. Then, when I hear them recounting what I said to other people they will say it in words such as ‘And he even admitted he thought that horribly raping someone is about love!’ The fact that I talk about love and not force naturally means that rape is not the term to use for what I am describing. But, to the paedophobe who cannot understand sex in terms other than those of rape, I appear to be perceiving things with conflicting logic. They prefer to assume against all odds that I am likening rape to love otherwise they would have to accept the logicality of my argument. (This is not a good example but unfortunately I cannot remember any conversations for this example word for word like I usually can.)
Trying to discredit facts I am saying as opinion born of my sexuality.
I may tell someone that paedophiles try and do what’s best for children so they are not evil. Even such a simple statement is questioned by people though. Whether or not there are more complex reasons as to why they may be doing harm by their actions does not mean that their state of mind isn’t a fact. They are trying to make people happy. Full stop.
The fact that a paedophile is a paedophile makes him no more likely to attack you in the street or rape someone or steal their purse. So, I would expect people to treat paedophiles with the same respect as they would accord any other human being (i.e. they don’t deserve a Portsmouth style lynch mob.) It would be different if they had a desire to fly planes into the World Trade Center. There may be a reason that justifies the killing of innocent people, but it still does not change the fact that the act is designed to make people unhappy. That is the difference between a paedophile and someone evil, even assuming that paedophilia is not justified. With that explained, I should expect no more accusations of ‘well, you would say that because you’re a paedophile and I just can’t trust you.’ There is nothing any more untrustworthy about paedophiles than about any other person. If I tell you I believe something, or that I feel a certain way about something, or that paedophiles behave in such and such a way, face it, it is a fact, the justification of which is what may not be a fact.
Filling in any possible gaps in my explanations of situations with assumptions that continue to fit the pre-conceived ideas about the situations which occur or had occurred during the life of a paedophile.
The problem is, paedophile says something like ‘paedophilia is based on an appreciation of the desires and needs of a child. It is to make the child feel understood.’ Then, the paedophobe is certain to say something like ‘but have you ever thought that maybe you are the way you are because you were abused as a child and now you are relieving that trauma just transferring it onto someone else.’ I mean, please.
Just because he don’t specifically tell them that he wasn’t abused as a child, what is the need to even bring the subject up after the paedophobe has discovered that paedophilia has nothing to do with traumatizing, abusing and upsetting children. Does he have to spell everything out?
Paedophobes only feel the need to continue blurting out these irrelevant arguments because it is what they have been brainwashed by the media to believe. Its almost as though they don’t know the meaning of what they are saying but have heard the phrases so many time in papers and psychological journals that that’s the only thing the paedophobes can say. If they knew what they were saying they wouldn’t carry on asking the about the possibilities of something being true when the questions they ask are no longer relevant.
Referring to their knowledge of extremely generalized findings from the ‘professional’ literature of the late 20th century, without any knowledge or thought of its possible prejudices.
This one is pretty much covered by the previous explanation. Newspapers often pick and choose the most sensational figures to report, or they will continue to report the same eye catchingly convenient figures each time they arise. In your case probably only the lack of knowledge of the original source’s flaws counts. Original source material is often flawed by all being of similar origin, such as the fact that all the source material used by Jean Renvoize comes from Victimological Psychologists such as Ray Wyre of the Gracewell Clinic. Renvoize writes of the Paedophile Information Exchange, yet does not cite the only book written by one of its members as source material. Other times, psychological reports disproving the theories of the Victimologists are censored as ‘corrupting,’ or that it must be flawed because it does not show what has previously been shown (and that would make someone look a fool, and nobody is going to object!)
Taking possible flaws in my cited sources to be indicative of flaws in the framework of my whole argument, even if these source flaws are not a crucial part of my argument, or are not ironed out by proofs from other non-discredited sources.
As you’ve probably noticed, I like to use Freud as source material. But he was by no means infallible. Freud’s teachings are often denounced as the work of a depraved Victorian male chauvinist, advocating the reality of child sexuality as a cover for the reality of child abuse. That view seems a little extreme, but it is the result of Freud’s disregard for the equality of females, a sign of the times, not a sign of Freud’s personality. If you take his teachings not as deliberate propaganda but as subjective interpretations of the facts that he undoubtedly uncovered through objective scientific methods, then you can learn so much from his work.
People are not willing to see that as all major researchers contribute such a diversity of information that they all must have their flaws but so too do they have a lot to teach us. If everything was totally discredited by a few flaws we could learn nothing.
What I am saying is that when reading anything we must, upon finding mistakes, simply slightly shift the conclusions of the original authors to encompass new findings as the world’s knowledge overtakes the original texts. Feud has dated well, and it is wrong for modern victimological psychology to fashionably denounce the teachings of the man who so blatantly obviously founded the profession that has turned against him.
In fact, modern psychology has changed very little since Freud. The advocates of the existence of the massive occurrence of child abuse (victimological psychologists) do not see how much the old and new have in common. All they ‘see’ is that they focus on the ‘discovery’ of child abuse, but Freud discovered child sexuality, and although the two discoveries have no reason to come into conflict (as we shall see in the next section) it is more useful for their political agenda to passionately denounce the old teachings to create the feeling of an emerging revolution in mankind’s understanding of its social problems. ( But seriously this is not the section for this explanation. See the next sections. Now bullet point 6. has become hopelessly longwinded.)
Basing arguments upon the definitions of ambiguous terms such as ’morality.’
For example, ‘I just cannot accept your point of view because it is immoral’ is another way of saying ‘I cannot accept your point of view because it is not right.’ Immorality is only what an individual believes to be wrong, expressed in an overly emotional manner. For example I believe it is immoral for police to persecute minority groups. But that does not explain why I believe persecution to be wrong (i.e. immoral.)
Taking a certain pride in continuing to believe previous, obviously discredited (even in the paedophobe’s perception) assumptions based on the belief that ‘whatever he says, there must be some reason I (the paedophobe) am right.’
Exasperation along the lines of ‘but he has an answer for everything’ is another form of this. The true answer to my comments would be to refute them rather than to point out that my comments exist. It is a way of not wanting to accept defeat, because the feeling of ‘moral superiority’ in a paedophobe is just so overwhelming.
Using the language of psychology to not answer questions.
Psychology is dangerous in the hands of those who know nothing about it. They can use it to try and explain anything. There are certain phrases commonly used in psychology that have become so pervasive in the general public that they are regurgitated word for word more or less whenever paedophilia is talked about, regardless of circumstance, demonstrating a lack of understanding. For example, rather than refute the idea I have put to him, a paedophobe will tell me something like it is plain that I am ‘projecting meanings’ onto situations.
I say: A 6 year old little girl once said to me that she thought kissing with tongues was disgusting. She made a big show of being disgusted. I asked 'Is it becuase YOU think its disgusting or is it because your mother makes you think its disgusting.' She paused, thought, and said 'Actually, it is because my mother thinks its disgusting.' I asked her who then she would want to kiss like that. She went red as a beetroot, and admitted it was me. This shows she knew that the kiss was sexual, wanted sexual relations with an adult, and that she was still no too old to break her parent's programming.
A paedophobe replied: God you’re projecting your own desires fantasies assumptions and personal meaning onto this situation. You’re totally convinced about your own personal perception of the event. Life is the way you see it isn’t it.
So, notice how the use of psychology allows him to make my idea look as though it is wrong because if it is a ‘projection of my own meaning’ then it is a way of showing that my meaning is artificial, an implant on top of the ‘real’ meaning. But his explanation is all well and good if he had at any point during our conversations explained WHY my ideas were wrong, as opposed to showing the process by which I have applied my conclusion ASSUMING that it is wrong.
I have read and (I think) understood much psychology. I may use it to explain what it is that is an unresolved issue from the paedophobes childhood that makes him or her hate paedophilia. But that is a final exercise. One cannot assume that the ‘issue’ is an ‘unresolved’ one, and by implication pathological, until one can even explain that the outcome of this unresolved issue is even really a delusional state of mind. This essay will attempt to prove the pathological nature of the paedophobe state of mind.
We must avoid the sensationalism of the use of trendy sounding phrases, and we must always examine our arguments to make sure that they precisely deal with the issue at hand. So far I have never come across anyone capable of doing this in the context of anti-paedophilia. Ever.
I also plan on showing that psychology in modern times has been shaped by the media and public perceptions created by the media, not truth. But even then, who is to say that the public opinion which drives modern psychology is not a justified reaction to pertinent situations.
Showing why victimological psychology has exploded does not explain why its findings are wrong, just why those findings came to be sought in the first place. Explaining the roots of victimological psychology is an integral part of my argument, but only in CONJUNCTION with actual proofs if the failures of the beliefs and methodology of the discipline.
So for now (until you have the information to start drawing conclusions,) I must painfully inform you to forget everything you ‘know’ about paedophilia, and just accept what I will tell you as fact. I am here to inform you, not manipulate you. I would like to leave this section with one final example. This is one with John Ryan, showing how he tried to be open minded (yes, he did!) but eventually failed. I can only conclude from the following example that John has either ignored, forgotten, or shut out of his mind (as a reaction against getting too close to the truth he does not like) everything the paedophile has said. Note that John’s first statement was said after the paedophile had got so angry and told him to just shut up and take it and listen to him. He was so sick of stupid responses he told John not to even try responding.
John Ryan Says: …and you expect me not to respond, what sort of control is that? …you say these statements such as paedophiles help deprived kids and other kids as well. That's a bold statement yet your forcing that statement onto me and expect me to say nothing about it. Get real. You may be able to control children that way but you cannot control me because I can answer back.
So paedophile says: Sorry. I
was being obnoxious. The reason is that I am so sick of talking to paedophobes
who do not listen and continue talking even when they're proved wrong that I
just assumed you would do the same, so thought it would be better to tell you to
shut up from the beginning. I was in a bad mood. Sorry. I was wrong. You are
obviously more intelligent than most.
So he replies: I see by your response here that you are a person of character and someone who values respecting others. Its a honor to share this planet with you. I understand that like myself you also get angry about things. I believe also that you are not a person who would have intentions of manipulating children.
Paedophile then explains a little of paedophile philosophy (edited): Once they are aware of all of the things that may be artificially causing them to say 'no,' or again, reasons why they may need to say 'yes' such as satisfaction of curiosity or emotional deprivation, THEN I think that a child does not need anything more from me if she still decides to say 'no.' An enlightened no is no. An enlightened yes is yes. But a child who says no for the wrong reasons is in no danger of being raped by me. In those circumstances I would continue to talk to the child about why she is saying no. Its enlightenment, not manipulation.
But Curiously John Replies With: In order to act on those feelings that involve others the only respectful thing to do would be to ask them if it’s ok to do such a thing as being sexual. Would you ask a parent if it would be OK to be sexual with their child, would you ask a child and how about asking her friends as well? No I guess you wouldn’t consider the feelings of others because you believe that your own personal feelings and fantasies and actions have the ultimate authority over others. You’re ruled by your own subjective reality and cannot distinguish between your own subjective reality and the objective reality that we all share. This subjective reality must be a very lonely and isolated place for you. I feel for you being imprisoned by this.