Why Abuse Does Not Justify Ignorance
25 August 2007Allow me to begin this article by stating that I do feel sorry for people who have been sexually abused. The vast majority of people who have been sexually abused deserve sympathy and compassion. Unfortunately, there are some abuse victims whose opinions are warped to the point where they feel that their experiences justify attacks against paedophiles who do not have sex with children. Many victims feel that every paedophile is a carbon copy of the person who abused them, which is a gross misunderstanding of paedophilia.
There are many similarities between the actions of child molesters and the actions of CSA victims who attack non-offending paedophiles, which will be discussed here.
The crime of child molestation is often described as an “attack against innocence,” a reasonable description. After having their innocence attacked, many victims of CSA (childhood sexual abuse) feel that it is valid to attack the innocence of non-offending paedophiles. Manipulatively, CSA victims use their victim status to justify unreasonable and untruthful attacks against paedophiles. This is despite the fact that most CSA victims have not been abused by paedophiles, rather they have been abused by non-paedophilic offenders. Most paedophiles do not have sex with children.
Many victims of CSA use paedophiles as targets for venting their emotions about sex abuse. The majority of the public is vastly uneducated in this area and highly susceptible to emotionally-driven campaigns against us, as an unpopular minority.
The website LiberatedFromAbuse contains a vicious and hypocritical opinion piece, located here
Excerpt #1 -
“I will always believe that paedophiles are the scum of the earth, and prey upon our children with vile intentions and lust. As this is a family site, I refuse to go into the appropriate punishment for pedophiles”
The obvious inference is that this person believes in brutal attacks against paedophiles, even if those paedophiles are innocent. Is an attack against innocence not what destroyed this person?
Excerpt #2 -
“However, what if there was a biological cause for pedophilia? If there were some sort of consistent data pointing towards a biological defect, would I feel the same toward pedophiles? The answer would most certainly be yes.”
So, this person feels that it’s acceptable to attack someone for a feeling which they did not choose to have.
Excerpt #3 -
“Due to the impossibility of recognizing pre-processed pedophiles, it would be up to the pedophile to ask for help. I don’t see many pedophiles racing for treatment centers [..] It would then be the double fault of the pedophile for molesting/abusing a child. If treatment was available, the pedophile has made a conscious choice to stick with his/her current sexual drives.”
[This person then alleges that an obscure condition is “the cause of paedophilia,” despite the fact that it is completely unrelated to sexual orientation or “sexual deviancy.”]
I think it’s obvious to most sensible people that the reasons for paedophiles not “seeking help” for their feelings towards children are twofold:
- It is impossible to cure someone of paedophilia. Even a well-known researcher who believes that paedophilia is an illness believes that one can’t be cured of paedophilia. The fact that a sexual attraction is unpopular does not make it curable.
- Very few paedophiles are prepared to subject themselves to the abuse of the public, even if they incorrectly believe that the attraction can be cured, as the public treat non-offending paedophiles as sub-human. Ironically, people such as the CSA victim quoted above contribute to paedophiles’ obvious fears by producing untruthful and hysterical statements about paedophiles.
The person goes on to state that paedophiles “should be shot” for not seeking (unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous) therapy, based purely on his faux research and factually incorrect statements. Not only is he being rather arrogant by suggesting that his opinion should dictate the lives of others, but his above-quoted statement is the “rational” equivalent of stating that “CSA victims must enjoy their abuse otherwise they would report it immediately.”
Many organisations for victims of CSA frequently attack non-offending paedophiles. Members of one message board - designed to help victims of CSA to recover from abuse - launched an attack against my old blog last November because I talked about a mere friendship with a child, who was a friend of my younger brother. As well as being blatantly false, the accusations posted by members were downright insane, from far-fetched allegations of grooming to claims that I am the disgraced musician Jonathan King.
Duncan Fairhurst - a victim of a non-paedophilic child molester (his father) - and Kirk McIntyre - a victim of offending ephebophile Jonathan King - decided to conduct what was essentially a hate campaign against my old blog, using both slander and their status as victims of CSA to remove a blog promoting the rights of abstinent paedophiles. One of his techniques was to send a member of the message board to post a comment at the blog, where he admitted to abusing a child and viewing child pornography, which one of his colleagues then claimed was written by me. This kind of manipulation is “ideologically identical” to the manipulation which paedophiles are frequently accused of.
Naturally, I defended myself. I engaged these people in debate elsewhere, which resulted in a lot of anger from the community of CSA victims. I’m going to categorically state that their anger was not justified; I was being attacked for what a child molester had done to them, despite being a non-offending paedophile. In reality, I’m confident that the “typical heterosexual” has more in common with child molesters than I do. I have stated countless times that most child molesters are not paedophiles, with a huge amount of evidence to back my assertion. If people wish to harass someone when they are innocent, they deserve a non-friendly response. The fact that someone is a victim of CSA does not give them a license to freely attack people because of their feelings for children, for the same reasons that a woman who is abused as an adult does not have a license to attack all heterosexual men.
Not only are many CSA victims slandering an entire demographic because a tiny percentage of people who belong to that demographic have abused children, most of them are actually attacking a demographic which is totally unrelated to their abuse - the paedophile demographic. The fact that they believe all child molesters are paedophiles is, quite frankly, ignorant. I’m not going to say that all CSA victims should be knowledgable about the causes of child molestation, however those who are determined to attack those who abuse children should build up such a knowledge, because attacking innocent people (as they do now) is wrong, even if those people are paedophiles.
It’s not impossible that the CSA victims who attack paedophiles are aware of the difference between paedophilia and child molestation, but choose to attack paedophiles out of a bizarre form of revenge. Do they feel that, because they have had their innocence attacked, they should attack innocent people? Non-offending paedophiles are the easiest innocent target and are commonly linked to child molestation, which makes paedophiles a handy target for these people.
While the above question may seem rather far-fetched, the effects of CSA often distort the minds of victims, leading them to engage in abusive behaviour, sometimes even the kind of behaviour which harmed them. From the information I have gathered by observing communities of CSA victims, I have noticed that many such people feel their lives are hopeless unless they can receive justice for what happened to them. Unfortunately, many appear to equate justice with equality, which leads to them either attacking innocent people such as non-offending paedophiles, or engaging in acts of abuse themselves in order to “make things equal.” This is utterly bizarre and nonsensical, but it appears to happen.
The CSA victims who take their anger out on others need to know that being a victim doesn’t give them a license to attack whoever they wish, paedophile or non-paedophile. In my opinion, CSA victims have an enhanced right to ruin the lives of their abuser, and they arguably have an enhanced right to fight child molesters. They do not have any right to attack or harass non-offending paedophiles, however. Strangely, many CSA victims believe that this is an acceptable form of “revenge.” One would expect better from people who know how it feels to be attacked as an innocent person.
15 Responses to “Why Abuse Does Not Justify Ignorance”
August 25th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Ignoring a quibble or two…
…I’d just say, that this is one of those issues, I’ve written about, several times…in different ways.
It’s one of the harder issues to address, because you are walking on egg shells.
On the one hand, you want it clear that you support, and are no threat to people who have been legitimately abused.
You want to be a supportive shoulder and ally, to those kinds of people.
…but, after you’ve sustained a long term, drawn out, vicious attack by one or more of the people who identify themselves as a CSA survivor…it becomes much harder to hold your tongue, and avoid tearing into people, who clearly deserve your retaliation.
The lengths to which some of these people will go, just to do anything they can to you, would leave most people furious, if it ever happened to them.
It’s nice to see you speaking out on this issue.
Unfortunately, it is one of those “line in the sand” kind of issues, which a lot of people wont understand.
All the best…
Steve
August 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
That would be one thing if it were not for you supporting the criminal actions of your cohorts.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“That would be one thing if it were not for you supporting the criminal actions of your cohorts.”
I don’t support criminal activity, I support changes in laws relating to non-contact offences.
Some recent cases involving paedophiles have been set-ups, as implied by the immediate reference to Jim Finn when I discussed your organisation’s use of set-ups.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
As the previous poster said, it is a difficult subject, but you’ve trodden that line expertly – an excellent piece and well-argued.
One minor comment refers to the words ‘unless it is acted upon’ in your phrase: “This is despite the fact that paedophilia, a sexual attraction to children, harms nobody unless it is acted upon.”
It is worth noting of course, that paedophilic relationships, of themselves, do not harm the participants, just as heterosexual or homosexual relationships do not harm the participants.
Harm suffered by one individual may be the result of, say, the use of force by another individual, but it is a facile (if frequent) error for the subject to then single out a characteristic of his/her aggressor, misunderstand the nature of that characteristic, and attack anyone else who seems in some way similar.
This is a crucial distinction that “CSA” support groups often fail to make. Acts were not committed against their will ‘by a paedophile’, but by a specific individual with specific characteristics – trying to categorize that individual by latching onto one perceived element of his/her sexuality is of course absurd. Just as it would be absurd to hate individuals with red hair, because you were once mugged by someone with red hair. Naturally, it is far easier for the lesser mind to cope with trauma by generating a self-portrait of an “innocent victim” attacked by a “demon” – the approach many “CSA” groups prefer (and perpetuate) – though ultimately this is clearly self-deceptive and harmful.
Thanks for the interesting article,
Strato
August 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
[By ‘previous poster’, I of course meant Steve Diamond. Unfortunately timed submission on my part.]
August 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
UserCriminals–
“That would be one thing if it were not for you supporting the criminal actions of your cohorts.”
Umm…what criminal actions? Or do you mean advocating for change in and of itself implies criminal conduct on the part of the advocates? If so, what does this say about you and your friends at PeeJay who have long advocated for change in the way a specific group is treated by society? Shall we some day, once the current hysteria has receded and rationality returned seek to try you as a criminal for your advocacy of hate crimes and the decriminalization of mob rule?
–I*Love*Green*Olives (reminding you that the accusing finger points at all times once towards the accused but thrice towards the accuser…)
September 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
“It is worth noting of course, that paedophilic relationships, of themselves, do not harm the participants, just as heterosexual or homosexual relationships do not harm the participants.”
He’s referencing the way children are raised, Strato; they do not understand sex, even if they do have the cognitive capabilities to understand it; they are raised to act like “children,” and they do just that and only that until mature behavior “develops.”
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 am
“He’s referencing the way children are raised, Strato; they do not understand sex, even if they do have the cognitive capabilities to understand it; they are raised to act like “children,” and they do just that and only that until mature behavior “develops.””
To be honest, I wasn’t referencing anything specifically, rather I was acknowledging the fact that many children are harmed by sexual relationships with adults.
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 am
You raise some very strong points. In fact, some are certainly true.
I’ll give you one first, and then I shall take one. You are right, I will have the article moved into the personal side of LFA where hypothetical facts, and strong opinions drive the discussion.
Now here is mine. The word “if” was used quite often in the article as if to illustrate a hypothetical response to a hypothetical scenerio. As I wrote the article at 22 years old, I was not sure where LFA was going at the time. The placement of the article after the overhaul was an oversight on my part.
You are right, we should be angry at the world. You are right, we should not fear all pedophiles.
You are right, we should not stigmatize pedophiles as child molesters.
You are right, we should use CSA as a license to shout.
But we do. As I drop the we, I tell you that my greatest response to CSA has been anger and the inability to understand the cognitive distortions and grooming process that led to the years of sexual acts. This anger has not gone away, Sir. The reason behind the inescapable anger manifests in my inability to understand the abuser. I try daily to resolve this issue in a controlled manner, and even an academic manner, but so far I have been hitting brick walls of anger.
I apologize for my outbursts in many of my personal articles, however it was one of your own–yes, he was a pedophile–that lost his will resulting in a loss of my childhood.
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
EDIT
These lines should read…
You are right, we should not be angry at the world.
You are right, we should not fear all pedophiles.
You are right, we should not stigmatize pedophiles as child molesters.
You are right, we should not use CSA as a license to shout.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Hi Thor,
I respect the fact that you have joined the discussion.
“As I drop the we, I tell you that my greatest response to CSA has been anger and the inability to understand the cognitive distortions and grooming process that led to the years of sexual acts. This anger has not gone away, Sir. The reason behind the inescapable anger manifests in my inability to understand the abuser. I try daily to resolve this issue in a controlled manner, and even an academic manner, but so far I have been hitting brick walls of anger.”
You can find many informative studies about CSA on the internet. There are many studies investigating the issue because of the need to help CSA victims and because of the economic interest involved with providing therapy for victims of CSA.
“I apologize for my outbursts in many of my personal articles, however it was one of your own–yes, he was a pedophile–that lost his will resulting in a loss of my childhood.”
Most people who sexually abuse children are not paedophiles by definition, however I accept that your abuser may have been a paedophile. I don’t consider abusive paedophiles to be “one of my own,” however.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 am
“I don’t consider abusive paedophiles to be “one of my own,” however.”
Many pedophiles detest their abusive counterparts, however they too were once non-abusive.
Respectfully,
Thor
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
“Many pedophiles detest their abusive counterparts, however they too were once non-abusive.”
Actually, it’s an accepted fact within the psychological community that the majority of paedophilic child molesters start abusing by the age of 15 (or earlier), before it is possible for a diagnosis of paedophilia to be made. That means that, technically, many of the paedophiles who actually act on their urges were never non-abusive paedophiles by definition.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Point. I just read an extremely intersting article related to that recently:
How Paedophiles Can Be Stopped
“Many child abusers start offending at an early age, often having been abused themselves. A new project aimed at treating these young offenders is beginning to yield encouraging results.” By Angela Neustatter
I found it to be rather interesting as it talked about young offenders. However, when discussing this matter with pedophiles and boylovers because they feel that young offenders are not offenders at all. Furthermore negating this belief that offenders start so young because they will not view the occurances as abuse.
October 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
one of the ways they are treating these so called “young offenders” is my abusing them further, making them watch so much porn in an attempt to desensitize them from said porn. they also make these kids (both younger children and teense) repeat mantras of self loathing, i.e “I am a pedophile, I will always lie, I can’t do anything I want.” and so and so on.
Cause I’m sure that when these kids grow up, everyone will love having a large number of self hating, bitter, abused men who still, despite all that craziness, want children. one would like to stop CSA, but this would only make it worse. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.