They need the public persona of being kind, gentle people to further their cause. They need tolerance for their deviancy and aberrational thought processes. They need us to tell them they are okay. But why would they need those things? THIS sums it up the best way:
Well, lets face it.... With all those new laws coming into existence trying to "out" us all to the entire world, with names, pictures and addresses being published all over the place.... Well, when that happens to someone, his life is as good as over.
Without public acceptance of them, they cannot progress to their ultimate agenda......free access to children's bodies without fear of repercussion.
Pedophiles deny use of child pornography, yet behind the scenes, they give tips to one another on how to hide it, which websites not to trust and how to avoid getting caught. They make in depth rationalizations of why child pornography should be legal and their reasons for using it. Some of the most common justifications I've seen have included......Looking at it may prevent someone from actually acting upon their thoughts. And Not having access to it may encourage one to act out their thoughts
And yet, according to Sandberg & Marlatt in D.R. Laws (Ed.) Relapse prevention with Sex Offenders p 81:
The internet provides a supportive environment in which to discuss fantasies of sexual activity with children in a context which routinises, sanitises and normalises sexual contact with children. While it can't be said with any certainty that all individuals who access child pornography will progress towards hands-on offences, the longer sexual fantasies are maintained and elaborated on, the greater the chance that the behavior will be acted out in real life.
This idea is further expanded upon by Ward & Hudson A self-regulation model of relapse prevention. In D.R. Laws, Remaking Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders: A Sourcebook
Child pornography typically depicts children smiling or with neutral expressions. Rarely, are any signs of discomfot illustrated. As such, these images serve to reinforce pro-offending, thinking, and justify adults sexual interest in children. Therefore, the more individuals engage in fantasy, the more motivating and more detailed the rehearsal may become, and the more able the individuals are to convince themselves to act out the behaviour in real life.
Child pornography, ranging from the brutal to the seemingly innocuous photos of children posed in underwear or swimsuits, are easily available. But quite difficult it can be to apprehend the producers of such. By focusing instead on the apprehension of the customer, the market for such filth will be quickly eliminated.
In Queensland Australia, (story HERE)the recent passage of a law giving police the power to force suspected pedophiles to turn over computer passwords, sparked a discussion within an online pedophile CHAT . Their solutions ranged from having software that would wipe your hard drive when a fake password was entered, to remote controlled injection of acid into the hard drive, and lots of other wacko solutions in between.
The question remains then, if they would never harm a child, never exploit a child, What do they have to hide? And why, if you dig deep enough, do you find that such a large percentage of them are convicted sex offenders of one type or another and/or constantly worrying about the possibility of arrest? Why?
A.C. Salter in Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims wrote:
Individuals who have committed sexual offences against children usually present with distorted cognitions, or offence-supportive beliefs, about sexual activity with children. Cognitive distortions are used to excuse offending, minimise harmful outcomes, or attribute responsibility for the offending behaviour to someone or something else. Because cognitive distortions are present from fantasy to post-offending they are crucial targets for intervention. Offence-supportive beliefs are similarly found in individuals who access child pornography. Here, the content of the distorted thinking typically revolves around seeing child pornography as a victimless crime and denial of the possibility of progression to hands-on offences.
See the following examples of Cognitive Distortions:
- Minimising Extent
- “I only went there once”
- “I didn’t look at pictures of young children, they were 14–15 y/o”
- “They weren’t sexually explicit pictures”
- Restricted View of Harm
- “I was only curious about how a child might look”
- “I was only looking, it’s not like I actually touched a child”
- “It’s only pixels on a screen”
- “I’m just collecting information"
- Justifying
- “It must be OK it’s all over the net"
- Child pornography is legal in some countries”
- "Some children are married and having babies before they turn 16”
- Blaming Others
- “My wife lost all interest in sex so I looked somewhere else”
- “The guys at work showed me where to find it. I wouldn’t have gone looking for it on my own”.
- “They shouldn’t let it be here if they don’t want me to look at it”
- Blaming External Factors
- “I was under pressure and just wanted a distraction”
- “I was trying to make a point against unfair censorship laws and went too far”
- “It was a political statement. It wasn’t about sex”
- Denying Planning or Setting Up the Offence
- “It just happened”
- “I just stumbled across it”
- “I was looking for adult pornography and it came up on the screen”
- “I don’t know why they keep emailing me this stuff”
- Fantasy is OK
- “What’s in my head can’t hurt anyone”
- “It’s not like I’m actually touching, I’m just thinking about it”
- “Just because I’m thinking about it doesn’t mean I’d ever do it”
- Poor Me
- “I really like children and everyone reads more into it”
- “Why is everyone so upset? I was just looking at pictures”
- “They’re all assuming it means I want to have sex with kids”
Do not be taken in by their rhetoric!
If you truly care for children, you cannot possibly be aware of this issue without asking yourself....Who is that little girl? Who is that little boy? I don't know about you, but that's the question that haunts me.
