From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Summary: Rationalizations for kiddie sex
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 23:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.010705.7692@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>After reading this newsgroup for a while, I have noted a number of
>similarities between the arguments of proponents of sex with children
>(pedophilia) and the perpetrators I have encountered over the years.  The
>patterns are:
>
>1.  Insist that any argument must be based on "logic," not emotion.
>    Perpetrators will routinely insist that the people around them should
>not have emotional responses to their abuse of children, and that if their
>conduct is acknowledged, that it be done in a "calm, reasonable, and
>logical" manner.
>    This behavior is essential to continuing their abusive conduct.  It
>allows them to deny the reality of the victem's emotional response if they
>can shut the victem up by insisting on only hearing "logic" or it allows
>them to deny the legitimacy of the victems feelings as a reason for change
>if they can't shut them up.  If the victem's feelings are not expressed, or
>are not relevant or legitimate if they are expressed, the  perp does not
>need to face the damage that they do or alter their conduct to respect
>those feelings.
>    It is an essential element of denial that allows them to continue their
>conduct and still feel good about themselves.
>
>2.   Deny that psychology, social workers, or social attitudes have any
>validity in their critiques of adult-child sex, or insist that the basis of
>their condemnation is unproven.
>     This part links up with No. 1, above.  Only logic and rational
>argument is allowed, but they will invalidate any discipline that condemns
>their behavior as somehow tainted with sex hang-ups or not quite believable 
>enough on some other basis.  
>     You invalidate the victem's reaction as a reason to change behavior.  
>You invalidate the feelings of the people around the victem as a reason to 
>change this behavior.  You invalidate the disciplines that support the 
>existence of emotional damage to the victem as a reason to change this behavior.
>     Are you noticing a pattern here?  The strategy is to create a
>defensive network that allows the perp to do what he or she wants to do,
>and insist it is okay, or not "proven" to not be okay.
>
>3.   Insist that they must be personally persuaded by logical evidence that
>they accept as legitimate that their conduct is harmful and inappropriate
>before anyone can have a legitimate reason too condemn them or take any
>action against them.
>     This is the final brick in the wall of defense and denial, and what
>everything else set out above is designed to support.  You cannot judge
>me--that is just proof that you are emotional or relying on unproven claims
>of harm to to kids.  You cannot prosecute me, because that does not respect
>my rights: you are just using power because you don't have enough good
>evidence to persuade me to change.  Therefore, your use of power is 
>illegitimate.
>    Notice that the illegitimacy of using power assumes that the  perp is
>an otherwise rational person, a good person, who would change if what s/he
>was doing was "really" shown to be harmful or wrong.  The perp is typically
>oblivious--and has every intention (conscious and otherwise) of staying
>that way--that they have set up their defenses so that it will be
>impossible to convince them that their conduct is harmful and
>inappropriate.
>
>I am very happy to say that I have no problem at  all with letting perp's
>know that I do not need to convince them that sex with children is bad:
>
>                    I have institutional power.
>
>I am entirely capable of and willing to prosecute them for this conduct,
>whether they think it is fair or not.  
>
>As for persons on the net who advocate for adult-child sex, they are
>entitled to speak for their point of view.  They should know that if I
>read of _conduct_ that is unlawful, I will do my best to contact local
>authorities.
>
>As far as the arguments of supporters of adult-child sex on the net go, I
>have no reason to believe that statements supporting this behavior mean
>that the person making the statement is engaging in the behavior.  I do not
>intend to imply that all these people are perpetrators, and I do not so
>imply.
>
>What I am saying is that, in my opinion, there is a common rhetorical and 
>psychological defensive posture being employed to justify this conduct by
>adults.  I hope that the fallacies of the game have been laid out a bit 
>more clearly for other people to see.  People who want to believe sex with
>kids is okay have too much invested to ever see that it is wrong.

This posting was inadvertantly deleted from this newsgroup.