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.
Labels: Child Pornography, Cognitive Distortions
20 Old Comments:
I am going to recommend
the invesigator of the week award go to Stitches77
another informative and well written post
Thank you for your hard work and diligence
"inject acid into hard drive" LMAO let's hope they spill onto their laps first
By 
Hellpig, at
Mon Jun 19, 02:27:00 PM PDT
I second that one HP, LMAO over the acid comment.
Nice post Stitches77
By Bushwack, at
Mon Jun 19, 03:10:00 PM PDT
Stitches that's the question that haunts me too. The cognitive distortions are particularly troubling because I've heard so many of them from these paedophiles.
This is a primary exposure goal: Exposing the true agenda and meaning of their words.
I agree with HP & Bushwack. You have done a superior job :)
By Daydreamer of Oz, at
Mon Jun 19, 03:51:00 PM PDT
Another excellent post Stitches. A lot of good info backed up by facts and good documentation.
How are you guys doing with the scum that you've turned over to the police so far? Have you got any numbers yet on any arrests from your info you've provided?
That would be great to hear about too.
By Sues, at
Mon Jun 19, 10:24:00 PM PDT
Sues, Patience girl its coming.
Got to give the good guys some time.
By Bushwack, at
Mon Jun 19, 11:02:00 PM PDT
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Bushwack, at
Mon Jun 19, 11:59:00 PM PDT
I had to remove the last comment (Legal reasons)
We got one but can't post details yet.
By Bushwack, at
Tue Jun 20, 12:05:00 AM PDT
WTG guys!! It just makes me smile everytime I think of the scum reading this blog and still unable to comment. They must be fuming. He, he, he.
By Sues, at
Tue Jun 20, 12:27:00 AM PDT
Hey, I'm gonna get you too! Another one bites the dust! ;)
Good work, Robert.
You're right Sues they are fuming....and only have each other to cry to.
By Daydreamer of Oz, at
Tue Jun 20, 12:52:00 AM PDT
Let 'em cry; it won't help. I guess they also forget that prison populations are not the healthiest environment for pedophiles.
By jarhead john, at
Tue Jun 20, 01:15:00 AM PDT
WOW!!!
Great post Stiches! I agree with HP about the whole investigator of the week idea.
I feel we are becoming stronger and stronger every day, and it will be good to see these freaks fall one-by-one.
By BigNewsDay, at
Tue Jun 20, 05:00:00 AM PDT
good post :)
By Not In My Backyard, at
Tue Jun 20, 02:54:00 PM PDT
I just came to this site by way of Bushwack's blog. I will preface this comment by saying I am still in law enforcement and I was, during my time in detectives, assigned for a time to the Child Abuse bureau for a department of 2,000+ officers for an area of 2.5 million people. Besides Child Abuse in detectives, I have worked in the Theft, Warrants, Robbery and Homicide Bureaus.
Nowhere in my career as a detective have I encountered a more devious, damaging, conniving, predacious set of deviants than while in Child Abuse. Those who prey on children in order to sate their own fantasies need, as my first supervisor once clearly stated, "to be lined up against a wall and shot."
Yes, it was important for me to be in Homicide for that was the ultimate sin; the killing of another human being, frequently with malice aforethought.
However, in many cases, the act of harming a child is equally heinous -- particularly those predators who depend on not simply the malice, but the planning, the plotting, the scheming they perpetrate in order to master and control children -- mere children -- persons whose minds and thoughts and deeds are, on a scale of sophistication, in the minus category when compared to those whose days are filled with mental images of their ultimate, twisted fantasy.
Abusers will use, do, say, pretend, write ANYTHING in order to fulfill their own personal fantasies. Which is why there are two sayings in the world of law enforcement when dealing with these predators; the first is a readily acknowledge known. The second few officers will ever acknowledge publicly but believe in their hearts:
1. Those who abuse have all been abused themselves; those who have been abused will not necessarily abuse.
2. Pedophiles cannot be "rehabilitated" or "cured," they can only be controlled; and that in only a limited fashion. Controlling includes death.
Why cannot pedophiles be cured or rehabbed? Because the mind cannot be repatterned and these people live deep within themselves, in the deepest, most convoluted recesses. Their individual fantasies and fantasy lives cannot be reprogrammed or altered any more than I can tell you, Bushwack, that today you will instantly become a homosexual and love and embrace that fashion, or that, instantly, a homosexual will become heterosexual and love and embrace that fashion.
Dayton Leroy Rogers, a horrendous pedophile, said that if he got out of prison and wasn't executed, he knew he would continue to offend and would not stop -- could not stop. He was executed.
Sometimes solutions can be simple.
BZ
By Bloviating Zeppelin, at
Tue Jun 20, 03:39:00 PM PDT
Wow! Very interesting. Also I'm a very strong supporter of capital punishment for repeat child molesters. (Truth be told I'd support it for the first offense.) Not only one strike you're out, but one strike you're dead.
By Stitches77, at
Tue Jun 20, 04:11:00 PM PDT
Death for a first offence....
From a purely pragmatic view it seems like the best solution to protect children. But then, just because something works doesn't automatically make it right.
And then there's always the ethical question of whether it's right to kill someone based on the assumption tha they'll offend again, when you don't actually know if they will or not. It's a complicated issue.... I guess life in prison for a first (serious) offence is the most extreme I'd be comfortable with.
By Twilight_Sky, at
Tue Jun 20, 04:56:00 PM PDT
Actually it's immaterial whether you re-offend or not, I believe anyone who would hurt a child in this way has given up his right to live.
By Stitches77, at
Tue Jun 20, 05:33:00 PM PDT
There's LWOP and then there's LWOP -- interpreted by the various states. Some states mean it, and some states don't. Check with yours to see if, historically, those hit with Life WithOut Parole actually SERVE it or if their sentences are rescinded, commuted or minimized in any way.
BZ
By Bloviating Zeppelin, at
Tue Jun 20, 06:10:00 PM PDT
Hmm. Because no justice system is watertight, we have to accept that there is likely to be a small proportion of people convicted of active paedophilia who are wrongly convicted.
With that in mind.... what to do? im not against capital punishment at all for certain guilty people. But i would want that only for repeat offenders, where the chances of wrongful conviction are negligable. Life imprisonment is an option for the first offence, but failing that, all active paedophiles should have their balls surgically removed at the start of their sentance along with sexualy suppresive drugs, and when they get out they should have to continue to go to a police station say once a week and take the drugs infront of an officer.
Failure to comply means getting locked up again. Repat offenders are executed to help discourage wannabe active paedophiles. I see no moral reason why the mothers of the children cant kill them if they wish, but thats another issue.
By Not In My Backyard, at
Wed Jun 21, 02:52:00 AM PDT
Well, losing your balls doesnt stop you getting an erection if they are removed after adolescance but it does reduce your sexual urges. As the policeman wrote above, paedophilia is the way your brain is wired, like liking feet or men or hey, pretty women. The more a paedophile looks at paedophilic stuff, the stronger the wiring gets and the more you think about it and so on.
However, removing someones balls makes the urge to follow your brains sexual pathway lower, so it becomes much less of an impulse and much more of a conscious choice while not preventing it (though even if the penis is cut off entirely, they still have fingers) When the sultans took black slaves, they cut off the balls of those that were "employed" to defend the sultans hareems... but what they didnt appreciate is that they could still have sex with the women if they choose to, but they just couldnt make them pregnant.
Eunochs who were castrated before puberty (for singing, in the west) on the other hand, couldnt get an erection im told. Male servants (they actually choose the job, i kid you not) of the "forbidden palace" had both their balls and penis's cut off, with a high fatality rate. this lead to a lot of problems! not least having to wear nappies.
Incidentaly, you know its traditional to carry flowers down the aisle? i recently heard that that is from the days when the ordinary person only had one bath a year and it was to disguise her odour, though i certainly wont claim thats fact. What is fact is that chinese women with aspiring parents a few hundred years ago had their feet broken and restricted to make them smaller as that was the fetish of the times. They had little sacs of perfume in their shoes to help mask the smell of what usually became a diseased foot. They could hardly walk and mostly had to be caried.
I think this is the origin of the feminist myth that high heels were invented by men to keep women in check.
Best,
Gareth.
P.s Why do women have small feet? so they can get closer to the sink of course! tehehehe :D *ducks
By Not In My Backyard, at
Wed Jun 21, 05:04:00 AM PDT
Post deleted. Rule 2
<< Home