A Major Distinction

Mary Duval believes no one should be on a public registry. (Except for people who criticize her views of course) She believes the "truly dangerous" offenders should never be released from prison. She says this even though she has listed a "fact" on one of her propaganda brochures that long prison sentences make the community less safe.

I'm not sure which she actually believes - if either - but I'm going to go with the assumption that what she really thinks is that "dangerous sex offenders" should be incarcerated and never released again to the public. This would fit with her statements such as"He should never get out of prison" or "He should just be shot".

So if that's true which sex offenders does she think poses a danger to the community? She defined it:

1. Repeat Sex Offenders
2. Those whose victims are strangers
3. Someone who uses violence

Mary Duval has further defined a repeat sex offender as someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. So according to her statements a man who is caught for the first time and who has multiple victims and was molesting children for years and years and years before being detected would be a first time offender and the "repeat offender" factor wouldn't apply to him and he would therefore not be dangerous.

If he groomed children over a long period of time, if he plied them with gifts and attention then maintained their compliance with the abuse through the use of psychological manipulation, that would also not be a dangerous person since he didn't use a gun or knife or fists to secure their cooperation. A man like that would not be considered dangerous according to Mary Duval.

If the person obtained his victims by dating or marrying a woman with children, or by playing ball with kids in the neighborhood, or volunteering as a Little League coach or being a Boy Scout leader, a Big Brother, a Church volunteer - or Church leader for that matter - that person wouldn't be a perpetrator against strangers and therefore would not be dangerous according to Mary Duval. Someone like Harold Spurling for example.

Mary Duval repeats that we need to start distinguishing between the "violent" and the "non-violent". What would she consider Harold Spurling? He didn't meet any of her criteria.

Harold Spurling who along with his partner molested a three month old baby and multiple children in their community. Some of their victims were abused for years. Harold Spurling who had the baby in his apartment that day because he had volunteered to babysit her. Harold Spurling who was known to play ball with the neighborhood kids. Harold Spurling who had one of the largest collections of child pornography in the history of Connecticut - much of it produced by himself. Harold Spurling who put my pedo-predator-detector into overdrive with his poem:

Little boy,
Pull me inside
The sweet dream that is you.
Let me hold you;
Let me breathe you in.
You justify my beating heart.
With you, the world and its endless troubles
Ceases to exist ...
Paradise doesn't hold a candle
To you.
Sweet expression of perfection;
Infantile bliss.
You run through my veins,
My lifeblood.

Harold Spurling does not fit Mary Duval's definition of "truly dangerous".

Harold Spurling was not a repeat offender as Mary Duval defines it. Harold Spurling did not use physical violence to rape children, he groomed them. Harold Spurling did not sexually assault strangers. And like most people who groom and molest children, one day he will get out of prison. I repeat: One day he will get out of prison. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to live across from that elementary school is protected. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to loiter around the playground is protected. Mary Duval wants to deny you the right to know that someone like Harold Spurling has moved into your neighborhood or invited you over for tea. What do you think about that?

On the flip-side of all this I wonder what Mary Duval thinks of Donna Kistler? As a Sosen activist Donna's primary argument was that most children are sexually abused by someone they know and .... it's always the parents fault. She says stranger crimes are rare. This was her basic argument for why the registry should be abolished. Take a look:

"The problem is, MOST child sex crimes or child abuse is caused by someone the child knows and trusts such as a family member. It is also mostly due to parental neglect. IF a child is NOT left alone or unattended, such as walking to and from school or the park then they could not and would not be abducted."

--Donna Kistler

We know that most young children do know their abuser in some way but I fail to see how that fits into Donna's philosophy. I found it quite interesting that while Donna was screaming "there's no stranger crimes" as her Pillar Number One she forgot about her own husband.

You see Peter broke into a woman's home in the middle of the night and raped her in her bed. She was a stranger. On two other occasions he broke into the homes of other women and attempted to rape them. They were strangers as well. Peter went to prison for 15 years, but like all violent rapists he got out one day.

Less than one year after his release he was caught trying to lure a 9 year old child into his car outside an elementary school. She was also a stranger.

So what do we have? Peter Kistler, a repeat sex offender, a violent sex offender and someone who had at least four stranger victims that we're aware of. What do you believe Mary Duval thinks of Peter Kistler? I wonder if Mary Duval would tell Donna that she believes Peter is dangerous and should never get out of prison.

A politician once said:

We're after violent sex offenders who rape, commit sexual battery, murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping with a sexual motivation and prey on our children. Those are the kind of offenders we're after.

Ken Lanning replied:

What we have to understand is that the major distinction between the sexual victimization of adults and the sexual victimization of children is one simple word: consent.

With adults in order for it to be a sex crime you have to have lack of consent and violence. You can have sexual criminals, sexual assault of children, without there being any violence.

And because an offender happens to groom and manipulate and seduce a child who cooperates in their victimization, those individuals, in my opinion, can be very dangerous. They are the most persistent and prolific of all known child molesters.

And to simply exclude individuals who happen to groom and seduce adolescent children doesn't make any sense to me.

A Profile of Pedophilia Part 2

To continue on with our discussion of the article published by the Mayo Clinic Dr. Seto classifies pedophiles according to whether or not child pornography and/or a computer was used to engage the child in sexual activity.

1. Stalkers - who try to gain physical access to children
2. Cruisers - who use the internet for direct sexual pleasure without physical contact (chat rooms)
3. Masturbators - who use the internet for passive gratification (child pornography)
4. Networkers or Swappers - who communicate with other pedophiles and trade information, pornography, and children
5. Combination of the previous 4 types

According to Ken Lanning

30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child

According to NCMEC

Forty percent (40%) of those estimated arrestees were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.

According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center

We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders

Here are some other quick stats:

• 39% of arrested offenders who met victims online possessed child pornography
• 43% of offenders who solicited undercover investigators posing onine as minors possessed child pornography
• 27% of dual offenders had shown or given child pornography to identified victims
• Approximately 1 in 5 arrested CP possessors (21%) had images depicting sexual violence to children such as bondage, rape, and torture.
• Most had images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%)
• One in six investigations beginning with allegations or investigations of CP possession discovered dual offenders.
• 39% of arrested offenders who met victims online and 43% of offenders who solicited undercover investigators were dual offenders
• Almost all arrested CP possessors (96%) were convicted or plead guilty, and 59% were incarcerated.

And should you wonder what motivates these possessors of child pornography, Taylor & Quayle has this to say:

• Sexually interested in prepubescent children (pedophiles) or young adolescents (hebephiles), who use child-pornography images for sexual fantasy and gratification
• Sexually “indiscriminant,” meaning they are constantly looking for new and different sexual stimuli
• Sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity
• Interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up web sites requiring payment for access

Dr Seto said:

people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults.

What were the images?

• 83% had images of children between the ages of 6 and 12
• 39% had images of 3 to 5 year old children
• 19% had images of toddlers or infants younger than 3
• 92% had images of minors focusing on genitals or showing explicit sexual activity
• 80% had pictures showing the sexual penetration of a child, including oral sex
• 21% had child pornography depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture. Most of these involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex

What happened to these men? Does anyone think it's easy to get out of something like this? Well I believe that they get a slap on the wrist compared to what they should get, but they don't get off that easy. It does indeed effect their lives and in some cases you might say it destroys them. Their reputation, their marriages, their jobs even. Basically they lose the respect of anyone who has known them. Who could respect someone who does such a thing? How many get away with it completely? Look at the following chart


Returning to Ken Lanning 's Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis whom the pedophiles misquote on almost a daily basis and whose work is quoted extensively in the Mayo article I'd like to share some random quotes of his that ties in nicely with this discussion

P 30 Need-driven behavior leads to bewildering mistakes

P 43 Pedophiles are skilled at manipulating children

P 52 Pedophiles almost always collect child pornography and/or erotica

P 69 Collecting this material may help them satisfy, deal with, or reinforce their compulsive persistent sexual fantasies…..Collecting may also fulfill needs for validation. …It is almost as though each hour spent on the internet and each communication and image is evidence of the value and legitimacy of their behavior.

P 70 Although their brains may tell them not to send child pornography or reveal details of past or planned criminal acts to someone they met online, their need for validation often compels them to do so. They believe what they need to believe

P 81 Pedophiles are more likely to use trickery, bribery or seduction to take their photographs of children. …..Many pedophiles even collect photographs of children who are complete strangers to them….

From David Alway aka Lindsay Ashford who spreads propaganda that child pornography doesn't exist to his pedo brothers: Nigel (convicted of greater than 11,000 CP images), Taf-Kat (convicted of greater than 70,000 images), to Infinity moderator of GirlChat (a picture of a six yr old giving a blow-job and a subscription to a little girl nudie site) and justified it like this:

What was I thinking? Apparently I wasn't thinking, that is what an addict does, they do not think about what they are doing or any consequences, they just need the "fix". I liked looking at those pics and I made a mistake

I SURVIVED the NIGHTMARE that is prison, and I got out, got a kick-ass job, have tons of lg's in my life

All these guys lead right back to Lindsay and men like Dylan Thomas of BoyChat who promote child porn and child prostitution.

I got off the Mayo article a bit here with this discussion of child pornography which was only a small part of the article as it covers the entire pedophile topic. CP is a big issue. It's HUGE. Regardless of what Lindsay Ashford or even the lowly Jackson would tell you.....We've talked about this before. About the Lindsay's of the world who love children so much that they want to legalize the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of dirty old men. We asked Who are these men? and Is this a game? We talked about John Melanson aka Camper who said:

Our desire for porn makes us use bad judgement sometimes

And now we'll talk about Stitches who says "I know what they're looking for" I certainly don't need a nodding pedo head - ILGO style to tell me it isn't so. We'll get back to Part 3 with the Mayo article soon but for now here's some random search terms from the last few hours:

• diaper child models
• panties children kids fucking
• kindergarten pedo rape
  
• share pics boylover
• preteens pedo porn
• pics vids mommy's boyfriend jacking off on little daughter
• pedo sex with 5yo girls
• pedo girls nude -teen -video
• web.archive boylove gallery
• watch illegal underground child porn of preteen girls
• young girls fucking
• mexican pedo pics
• exploit porn child free pictures girls
• kids pedo pics
• child models panties
• child porn video pedo rape
• 10yo boys naked and hard after sex

And my favorite:

• can someone go to jail for viewing child porn in their past?
• safe payment hard cp pedo
• how to pass the abel assessment
  
  

I'll leave you with this thought: When the pedophile community attempt to ridicule what you are doing, when they scoff and when they rant, sometimes when they try to charm you...... remember who and what they are. Remember their motives for saying these things, and remember above all the results from the N-JOV Study

more than half of child pornography possession cases began with reports from individuals to law enforcement

A Profile of Pedophilia Part 1

Nigel sure does like this article published by the Mayo Clinic. I can't figure out for the life of me why though. Maybe he just doesn't understand it? Or maybe he just obsessively collects anything that has the word pedophile in it as though it were some sort of trophy. On the other hand, maybe his pathological need for attention leads him to do those things. In any event, here it is.

Released in April of this year and co-authored by Drs. Ryan and Richard Hall, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues is in response to the increased public awareness of pedophilia and to educate physicians regarding the issue.

So, what's in it exactly? Nothing that could help Nigel. Nothing that could help any of them actually. Let's look at some of the highlights which interestingly enough reflect our position on the issues here at AZ.

It includes the types of sexual acts pedophiles may engage in with children listed by types of paraphilias...exhibitionism etc.

Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children)

A US Department of Justice manual for law enforcement officers identifies 5 common psychological defense patterns in pedophiles:

1. denial "Is it wrong to give a child a hug?"
   
2. minimization "It only happened once"
   
3. justification "I am a boy lover, not a child molester"
   
4. fabrication "the activites were research"
   
5. attack "character attacks on the child, police etc"
   

Sound familiar?
The article continues with diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and gives this information from a study by Gene Abel

40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

It then talks about categories of pedophiles, exclusive or nonexclusive and homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. A study by Abel et al of 377 nonincarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.

These studies confirm law enforcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults. Studies that used self-reports and polygraphs show that pedophiles currently in treatment under report their current interest in children and past behaviors

Wonder why they would under report? Is this article saying that's typical behavior for a pedophile to...what....lie?

Then it goes on to discuss incest:

Federal data show that 27% of all sexual offenders assaulted family members. The study by Abel and Harlow found that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family member; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or an adopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and 5% had molested a grandchild

Let's look at that a moment, as one of the favorite "statistics" that pedophiles love to toss around is that 90% of all child molestations are not committed by pedophiles. They got that information from an unethical journalist, but claim it came from an expert in the field. David Alway aka Lindsay Ashford is the one who started that deceitful propaganda, while all the little pedo heads nodded in unison as it spread like wild fire through their community. Having witnessed Ashford repeat that statistic with my own eyes, and having seen the media fail to follow up with that, you have to wonder why. Why do they allow that statement to stand? Because they don't know....it doesn't sound right, no but not having devoted their life to the issue well no, they haven't read the literature.....It's not pleasant reading that's for sure. They know it doesn't sound right but they have a creepy little pedophile sitting in front of them spouting off statements as FACT and the result is that the statement ends up hanging there in mid air. This is what they want.

Can't you just see Lindsay now? Digging, digging deep down into the bowels of the internet to find one sentence......NOT backed up by what the author actually said I might add and suddenly it's EVERYWHERE! Pedophiles are all aware of this statement. Lindsay even edited Wikipedia and added it there. Just goes to show you that something doesn't have to be true to make it into a Wiki entry. Yet only a handful can tell you where it came from and not a single one of them will be honest with you and tell you that it isn't true after the deception was uncovered HERE

The other little trick they try to pull (and unfortunately it worked on pedophiles) is to try to claim that the difference between a situational versus preferential means something different than what it really means. These were two terms coined by Ken Lanning to aid LEA in understanding how to investigate CSA cases. There's a very interesting post regarding the pedophiles misinterpretation of this Lanning report located HERE

Concerning the above they routinely fail to understand when they make the statement that most abuse is committed by family members, is that number 1 that's a false statement, number 2 just because someone is committing incest does not mean that they are not a pedophile. The studies they link to showing the numbers of abuse do not address the question of whether or not the perpetrator is a pedophile. And in fact Ken Lanning stated in his report that this was one of the biggest mistakes law enforcement make when investigating a case involving incest when they assume that there are no other victims but one.

I'll have to come back to this Mayo article later as there is simply too much to fit into one post. I do think you will find it valuable reading though should you care to take the time with it. It includes heavy referencing of the work of Dr. Gene Abel who conducted one of the largest, most comprehensive studies to date and was subsequently labeled a crackpot by none other than the dad-beating boy-luster BlueRibbon. It also references the expert Ken Lanning who was libeled and defamed by a child predator known as Lindsay Ashford....The result being? Now the entire pedo community believes the great Lindsay lie.

This is just one more example of the dangers of pedo congregation, and I'll leave you with a perfect example. We talked about an Australian report HERE, we explained how pedophiles had misinterpreted that report........there is no doubt about it. And yet HERE we have JD420 stubbornly continuing to make the same pedo-lie to new people. Pedo activism....purposefully deceiving....proliferation of lies with a sinister ulterior motive---gaining sexual access to children.

JohnDoe420 is the very epitome of why. Why places like AZ exist...... and just as importantly why we will not stop.

Ken Lanning said:

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts.

Gene Abel said:

Pedophilia is the most significant cause of child molestation.

The Evolution of a Factoid

We've recently been discussing FACTOIDS,

Statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

in our Facts According To Jay series. There's several more to come in this series, but for a nice little intermission, I thought it would be nice to show you the evolution of one.

I recently made this comment

pedophiles quoting Ken Lanning, and Hall and Freund, and even Krafft-Ebing for God's sake .... I could see it maybe if one of them misquoted and took out of context one sentence out of a 160 page document to use in their defense. But when ALL the online pedophile community misquote the EXACT SAME THING, then it most certainly is not an individual mistake, it is a concerted effort to mislead and there has to be ONE person responsible at the heart of it. ONE person who started spreading 'quotes' from academia. And now they all repeat the same thing....with confidence, they say things like 'That's a 'FACT'

Now we're going to get to see it in action. A reporter for The Toronto Star covered the STORY of a newly released research paper regarding Pedophilia Diagnosis. Here's what the reporter had to say:

Much to the surprise of researchers involved, a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Well that seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Here's some of the things the Girl Chat community had to say....

The Walker proudly proclaims....

Much to the surprise of researchers!

Fabri-Chan replies....

I'm tired of feeling that everyone is stupid and I'm the only one with his head screwd on straight.

Ducky says....

Why don't they just go to a local water park and count how many dudes are there? Simple.

MoonDreamer....

The fact that people who don't molest children are more attracted to them is kind of a hint that most of us aren't child molesters, no? This, coupled with the findings that most molesters aren't pedos makes it pretty obvious what the reality is. Who the hell else would view CP??

Arch....

called MoonDreamer's statement an absurd point and said... your statement "who the hell else would view CO?" isn't much different than saying "who the hell else would molest children?" Yet it's well proven that the second contention is false.

Demosthenes, the great orator says (among other things).....

The common assertion out there is that viewing child pornography increases the chances of acting up desires, while in here the common assertion is that it reduces the chance. Here they are saying that their research indicates that those who view the CP have a stronger attraction than those who act on that attraction.

Well, um, no, that's not what it says at all. Let's clarify this quickly shalll we?

This study was written by Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard for The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and University of Toronto. The title is Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia and was published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610–615.

Please notice the title of the article. Let's look at the actual article now.

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Clinicians currently rely on three potential sources of information when considering the diagnosis of pedophilia: selfreport, a history of sexual behavior involving children, and psychophysiological assessment. All of these sources have their limitations. Self-report regarding an individual’s sexual interests is the simplest to obtain, but some individuals will deny having pedophilic interests. An individual’s history of sexual offenses, in terms of the number, gender, age, and relatedness of child victims, is informative, but it only approximates the offender’s interests because it is limited to known victims. Psychophysiological assessment methods such as viewing time provide an objective method of assessing sexual interests, but they also can be vulnerable to response suppression.

Our results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. One possible conclusion being, people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults. Another possible explanation for the difference between child pornography offenders and offenders against children is that the child pornography offenders were less likely to attempt to suppress their responses to stimuli depicting children (or were less successful in suppressing such responses).

Our results have implications for both clinical and theoretical work on pedophilia because they suggest that child pornography offending has diagnostic significance and may be particularly helpful in circumstances in which the person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behavior involving children, or in which phallometric test results are unavailable. Whether child pornography offending is associated with a different prognosis than are other indicators of pedophilic interests, such as its relative ability to predict sexual recidivism, remains to be determined

They end with this question:

individuals who collect pornography depicting only girls might be less likely to commit sexual offenses against boys or to show sexual arousal to boys in the laboratory. Given the positive relationships between sexual arousal to children and having multiple child victims, boy victims, and younger child victims (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001; Seto, Murphy, Page, & Ennis, 2003), and other research demonstrating that these same victim characteristics predict subsequent offending (Seto, Harris, Rice, & Barbaree, 2004), one could predict greater pedophilic arousal—and a greater likelihood of subsequent sexual offenses against children—among individuals who possess more child pornography content, pornography depicting boys, and pornography depicting very young children. We are now beginning a research project designed to test this question.

Now, who is responsible for this? Is it the authors of this study? Who said:

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Or could it be the reporter for The Toronto Times who said:

a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Does that statement look anything at all like what the study actually said? No, no it doesn't. But since the unethical journalist reworded it in her own words, it was much more appealing to the pedo community. In fact her rewording completely changed the meaning of it. Be aware in the future of this name ROBYN DOOLITTLE because you'll be seeing the pedofreaks quoting her endlessly in support of their contention that pedophiles don't commit crimes against children.

They're already in the process of developing a new factoid based upon it. Apparently this is how they came to rely on Joanne DiLorenzo. When she reported that Ken Lanning believed that 90% of molestations were committed by non pedophiles, in direct conflict with what he has written and repeated over the years, the freaks latched onto it, and it has become like a mantra for them. Let's don't let this happen with DooLittle. Ethics in Journalism?

Shutting Down a LIAR, again...

JohnDoe420, known around these parts as the forgettable JD, has a little problem. (Shhh I don't think he knows). You see, he falls a little short in the thinking department. Now while we all know he's a pedovore, AND he likes 'em young (as in 6 months old).... everyone may not be aware that he's practically illiterate. He cannot process and analyze information correctly, though goodness knows he'll give it his best shot, it's not really saying much, but what's even more telling is that he requires the assistance of a 'friend' and even when the two of them put their noggins together they STILL can't get it right.

Let me explain. Pedofreak Autumn used a link to a study .... he analyzed the statistics and concluded that 80% of all child sexual abuse was committed by the parents. He simply misunderstood the results. He applied neglect stats to child sexual abuse stats in the same manner as olive freak did a couple of months ago. So I clarified this particular error on their parts once again. I asked if they deceive on purpose? Or perhaps they are stupid??

I got an answer, oh boy did I. JD rides in to save the day on his high horse. He declares that he's "Shutting down a liar, again....." (me) So nevermind the fact that he's never shut me down for the first time, a second time or any time for that matter. He's never shut AZ down, or proved me or any one of us team members at AZ to be a liar.... He proceeds within one post to call me personally a LIAR a total of 10 times --while quoting me--as quoting the 2004 report which was quoted by Autumn and instead linking to the '99 report himself. Me? Liar?


So let's reiterate.... he called me a liar 10 times, he claimed that I (and AZ) are trying to protect child abusers, he claimed that I am trying to HIDE FACTS about domestic and intrafamilial sexual assaualt.... all this from the slithering PRO CONTACT PRO ABOLISHMENT OF AGE OF CONSENT LAWS pedofreak activist who is despised by at least 90% of his own community. The pedovore who is sexually attracted to 6 month old babies and insists they can give him permission to do what he does.

Well, alrighty then. All of this because I posted a link to a study that they had already linked to but conveniently left out this particular chart.



So, does stating the published words of someone else in quotes make me a liar? Or does perhaps calling me that simply make JD appear blatantly desperate?




*IF* I made this statement

"Ken Lanning of the FBI says that 90% of all child molestations are committed by non pedophiles"

Then YES I'd be a liar.

If, however I said the

DHHS says that 2.6% of sexual molestations are committed by parents

or

Ken Lanning of the FBI said "Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system"

OR

"Preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children"

OR

Gene Able stated that "pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations."

Would that also be a lie? Would that support the notion that I'm attempting to HIDE EVIDENCE within the vast expanse of the internet from which I first retrieved it?

Or perhaps I've simply been libeled.

JD ends his lunatic rant with this gem of a question

What is her (stitches) personal, vested interest in promoting and protecting the rape of children?

Perhaps her daughter could tell us more.

Well JD you know, this is over the top even for someone as unstable as you are, and I do realize that you felt slighted when I called you forgettable....but just be patient we'll get to you too. You'll get the attention you've been longing for............and it will be a sight to behold.

BB the Perpetuator of Half-Truths, Misleading Details and Outright Lies

There's this guy over on Girl Chat, BB, that I think is worth noting here. He wrote a letter a couple of years ago to an anti-pedophile organization. He was so "impressed" with himself he just has to share it with his community.

He writes that the anti site is filled with "misleading details, half truths and outright lies"....."But" he writes, "that's the way you people work. Hmmm, guess we'll have to correct that statement, but first He says "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your lofty goal was to protect children."

Interesting how he and all the other pedovores speak in such derogatory tones about anyone interested in protecting children.

BB quotes this anti site as saying "When visiting any of the dozen or so pedophile sites on the internet you will rarely find an open acknowledgement of the sexual exploitation taking placce behind the scenes."

To which he responds

"That's because there isn't any....I can say without any doubt that you will NEVER' find such a thing on any CL website - ever!"

Oh dear. Let's see for example on girl chat, it is against the rules to admit doing anything illegal, though I've seen many posts that do. And you are allowed to discuss illegal acts only as long as you were already convicted of them. And I've seen plenty of those, BB.

The question of course would come down to what is the meaning of harm. Since you believe apparently that producing, buying, and viewing child pornography is not harmful, and since you believe that having a sexual relationship with a child is not harmful. Then you wouldn't see much AS harmful now would you? Oh of course except for those horrible child rapists.

Again quoting the anti site ""Whatever the reason, most of the pedophile sites, at least on the opening pages, attempt to soften the predator reality..."

Actually that statement is true, but BB has deviant thought processes so he responds this way

• "There is no "predator reality." We are *NOT* predators!
  
• The vast majority child molesters are not even sexually attracted to children.
  
• The majority (90%) of child sex offenders are "situational offenders" who do not have a sexual attraction for minors. [Kenneth Lanning, FBI, 1999]
  
• Child molesters are usually relatives or friends of the family, not your mythological "predator."
  
• Other statistics readily show that a so-called "normal" man is 2-3 times more likely to molest a child than one of us. Frankly, the *facts* show that your children are safer with us than they are with you, statistically speaking.

Yet, what is the truth?

There is no study that says child molesters aren't sexually attracted to children.

Ken Lanning DID NOT say that 90% of offenders are 'situational offenders'

What Lanning DID say is

• Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system
• 
  
• "This newer typology places all sex offenders, not just child molesters, along a motivational continuum, Situational to Preferential,instead of into one of two categories. It is a continuum, not one or the other
• 
  
• The majority of offenders who simultaneously sexually victimize multiple children are acquaintance child molesters, and most acquaintance child molesters who victimize multiple children are preferential sex offenders


• Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children
  


• "the *facts* show that your children are safer with us Is in fact not a fact. It is a misleading detail and an outright LIE.
  

Why do pedovores like BB continue to misquote Ken Lanning? His entire study is not in their favor. Out of >160 pages there is not one thing that could be of use to them, however they found a B-grade alternative editorialist who mislead about what Lanning said. She made it appear that she had interviewed him, when she in fact had not. She made it appear that he had said something that he did not say and that is exactly opposite of his paper.

BB even goes so far as to say that "child molestation, like adult rape, is a crime of power and control, not a crime of sexuality" which is exactly opposite of what Lanning said. He said with adult rape it was a crime of power NOT sex, but that with children it was a crime of sex not power. The driving force is a sexual attraction to children.

Abel says that 95% of ALL child molestations are committed by pedophiles. Pardon me, if the world doesn't believe your sniveling, BB.

You did say one useful thing in this lengthy lie however and that is that "Martin Luther King Jr said "A lie cannot live" and he was right."

Yup, BB et al, a lie cannot live, after all that's what we're here for, to make sure it doesn't.

I Didn't Know Whether to Laugh or Cry

After recently discovering
that the pedophile community is using (among other things) an editorial written for an alternative news source as a justification for tolerance.

And having exposed an obvious pedophile apologist who believes Michael Jackson should be excused by society because he didn't commit violence against his victims and paid them millions of dollars.....(though not of free choice)

I sarcastically made this remark

The next thing you know the pedovores will be editing Wiki's and using Ms. Amiel as a reference.

Ah, but little did I know. They're already using Ms. Amiel! Why, it's even in the pedo library!

Example in point, Tom O'Carroll, a long time pedophile activist and repeat sex offender, member of NAMBLA and pervert extraordinaire, quoted and linked to Barbara Amiel, a journalist, in defense of his position that

True concern for children would prefer to see some children participating willingly in pornography under monitorable conditions than to have others brutally exploited because of their status as runaways or mere chattels of their parents.

Then he has an editorial by Ms. Amiel. After reading what she had to say about Michael Jackson it should come as no surprise
.

Child pornography is produced because some people have a need to look at it. This need and its satisfaction will not be extinguished by Patten's prohibitions any more than homosexuality or the craving for the high has ever been extinguished by legislation. Human desires are largely indifferent to fines, although any instinct can be curbed by sufficiently draconian measures.

One is revolted at the idea of children posing for pornographic pictures, but while the use to which the pictures may be put in someone's mind is abhorrent, I can't really see that simply photographing a child exploits him.

In the end, I suppose, I dislike all legislation like this proposed new amendment to the Criminal Justice Act., because it is legislation against an essentially victimless crime. The living child exists only in the paedophile's mind.

Victimless Crime???

I'm simply at a loss for words. While I've been researching reputable studies and peer reviewed academics, the pedophile community is quoting criminals and journalists.

Lanning said on p.69

Many preferential sex offenders collect academic and scientific books and articles on the nature of their paraphilic preferences in an effort to understand and justify their own behavior. For the same reason pedophiles often collect and distribute articles and manuals written by pedophiles in which they attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior……..

I guess that says it all.

It Actually Does Bear Repeating

We'll return to our good friend Ken Lanning. There is no doubt what Lanning said. There is no doubt what Lanning meant. Only if you want to read that 'blue' means 'red' can you take this to mean anything other than what it says.

Understanding the Preferential Molester
Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system. Depending on how you define molestation, they can easily have hundreds if not thousands of victims in a lifetime.

Because the molestation of children is part of a long-term persistent pattern of behavior, preferential child molesters are like human evidence machines. During their lifetime, they leave behind a string of victims and a collection of child pornography and erotica.

And that's not all

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts. They try to convince themselves that they love and nurture children. Because most of them have hidden their activities for so long, when identified and prosecuted, they try to convince themselves that they will somehow continue to escape responsibility. This is why they often proclaim their innocence right up to the time of their trial. If, however, the investigator and prosecutor have properly developed the case, preferential child molesters almost always change their plea to guilty. The last thing they want is to have the public hear the details of their sexual activity with children. After pleading guilty, they attempt to convince the sentencing authority that their lives have been ruined and that they are "sick" and need treatment.

We know what Lanning said. Choose another scapegoat.

Dear Jillium

Well, well, well. Isn’t this convenient? The paedophiles are now claiming that the 90% non-paedophile child molester statistic didn’t come from the Lanning report at all. Rather, Jillium says:

The source for the 90% figure is 'Profile of a Pedophile,' (and Correctional Services of Canada + Australian Northern Territory Government and Police) not 'Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis.' Lanning's equivocal & inspecific language in the latter doesn't check.

Here’s my question. Are you making this statement out of ignorance because you haven’t even read the documents or are you, like the rest of your ‘community’, deliberately deceiving people? Let’s just have a look at these sources, shall we?

Go here to see the truth regarding the so-called ‘source’ Profile of a Pedophile.

Now we have the Northern Territory report. Ashford references it this way in Wikipedia. Joint submission from the Northern Territory Government and Police, 9 March 1995, page 4. Cited in "Organised Criminal Paedophile Activity." 14.8% of the sample were assessed to be pedophiles.

And you said Finally, according to the Australian Northern Territory Government and Police, only 14% of extrafamilial offenders are paedosexuals. Lanning's unequivocal "especially," without citation, isn't worth shit.

What did the actual report say? At note 66:

It’s statistics since mid-1990 had shown 304 persons involved in known or suspected child sex offences. Of these 124 were related to the child. Of the remaining 180, only 45 (ie. 14.8% of the total) had “been identified as paedophiles or suspected paedophiles, with all the classic indicators.”

You paedophiles are attempting to give the appearance that 304 offenders were clinically assessed and that only 14.8% were paedophiles. This is not the case. No one was assessed! This is the number of child molesters that officers were able to identify immediately upon investigation as having the ‘classic indicators’.

There was no sample. There was no assessment.

The committee is extremely clear that all figures are estimates that cannot be substantiated. See for instance at 2.13

For example, a preferential molester detected sexually molesting a child may claim to be a situational child molester to avoid further investigation of his or her activities or to avoid admitting his or her true preference. If detected offending in an intra-family situation, other, possibly long-continuing, sexual offences against children outside the family may go undetected if it is accepted too readily that the offender is a situational molester.

Or at 2.15

A further problem is the location of willing research subjects, given the illegal nature of much paedophile activity.

And at 2.20-2.22 the Committee explains that a major problem in gathering statistical data is under-reporting and the fact that it is impossible to determine the number of unreported offences every year. At 2.22 the Committee gives the following reasons why this occurs:
-May be ‘street kids’ who submit to abuse in exchange for food and shelter.
-Distrust of police
-Some children may not view themselves as victims

And finally

Paedophiles are said to be adept at persuading or pressuring children into not complaining.

Or you may find 2.27 interesting:

The statistics do not attempt to address the question of what proportion of the cases of child sexual abuse were committed by paedophiles or what proportion involved any organized paedophile activity. Often this information would not be known at the time the report was first made, and may not be known even following the degree of inquiry necessary to determine if the report is substantiated.

The committee also emphasizes the incomplete nature of reported information at 2.32

In putting these State and Territory figures together, allowance has to be made for the fact that they are merely estimates, very tentative ones in some cases, and that the methodology and definitions underlying them are not identical.

The Canadian report that has been cited can be found
here. This document is entitled Research on Sex Offenders and reports on recidivism rates of all sex offenders.
-The section on child molesters is relatively small when taken in context of the entire document.
-Reports on all types of sex offenders.
-Reports on alternative treatments for sex offenders NOT on different types of sex offenders.
-The figure 90% does not appear anywhere in this document.
-The figure 10% appears in the following contexts:

One recent study found that only 10% of rapists preferred violent sex
over mutually consenting relations.

Based on the most recent Canadian studies, estimated recidivism rates
for treated sex offenders fall in the vicinity of about 10%.

More importantly, their rate of recidivism was less than 10%.

So Lanning’s study was quoted like the Bible, now I’m being told his word ‘isn’t worth shit.’ We have now exposed the truth about these three references. Are you now going go find me three new ones? Tip: You can’t find something that doesn’t exist!

Anyone wondering why these paedophiles are so insistent on gathering, misquoting and lying about these studies and reports? For that, we’ll return to Lanning (2001) p. 59:

Collecting may also fulfill needs for validation. Many preferential sex offenders collect academic and scientific books and articles on the nature of their paraphilic preferences in an effort to understand and justify their own behavior. For the same reason pedophiles often collect and distribute articles and manuals written by pedophiles in which they attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior.

and in Lanning (1992) p.88:

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts. They try to convince themselves that they love and nurture children.

Who Perpetrates Child Sex Offenses?

Lanning says:

Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system.

p. 87

Lanning, K 1992 Child Sex Rings: A Behavioral Analysis 2nd edn, Washington, National Center For Missing and Exploited Children.

The Spin Stops Here

Have you ever wondered how to get someone to believe something that isn't true? One way to do it I've discovered is to hop on over to Wikipedia find the topic of your choice and edit to your hearts content. Why lots of people do it....for example....

Lindsay Ashford with the pedophile entry, or how about Blueribbon and Jillium on the new Wikia. What's interesting to note is that both use the same references to support their propoganda that approximately 90% of all child sex abuse cases are NOT committed by pedophiles. So if that doesn't ring true to you, let's see if we can figure out why.

First they quote this figure and link to Ken Lanning's 2001 Behavioral Analysis Study, which we previously showed you was incorrect HERE. So where in the world did they get that figure? The one we all know isn't true. Read the references listed in Wiki (and of course HT to Jillium for pointing me in the right direction). There's 3 references listed here that they seem to rely on the most. The first is an article by JoAnn DiLorenzo, the second is a study posted on the Correctional Services of Canada website, and the third is a study by Australian Northern Territory Government.

So we're gonna tell you what they say is in the reports and what's really there, we'll give you links to them and let you decide for yourself.

Today we're going to talk about JoAnn DiLorenzo. No, no she's not a scientist, she's not a physician, she's not a law enforcement officer, or an attorney, judge, or psychologist. What she is though, is a journalist. She writes for an alternative news source called Valley Advocate. In 2001 she wrote an article called Profile of a Pedophile. Subtitled How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys - and why some people in town continue to stand by him.. And THIS is how she is referenced over on Wiki.

{10}^ DiLorenzo, JoAnn (1981). "How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys," The Valley Advocate, quoting the FBI's Kenneth Lanning, who estimates that only 10% of child sex offenders are preferential.

Hmmm, seems simple enough, let's trot on over and see what Ms. DiLorenzo wrote, shall we?

Lanning believes most child molesters fit neatly into two categories. About 90 percent are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children. The situational molester sexually exploits children to satisfy a curiosity, for kicks or because he's simply morally indiscriminate.

The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children. This category, Lanning said, has two subsets, the "introvert" and the "seductor." The seductor can be a seemingly upstanding citizen, the "male role model" a family's been looking, a priest, mentor, coach, friend. This is deeply unsettling to most people.

Now look at those two paragraphs. This experienced journalist, makes it appear that she's interviewing Lanning and quoting him. She's not. She throws in enough quotes (taken word for word from his 2001 study) to make it appear that her own words are his. They are not. If we return to Lanning's 2001 study we see that she has mischaracterized what he said.


DiLorenzo said:

Lanning believes most child molesters fit neatly into two categories.

Lanning said:

Although my old typology was still useful, its limitations gradually became evident to me. I realized that complex human behavior did not easily fit into neat little boxes. I, therefore, slowly began to revise it, and it has been updated by the typology presented here. This newer typology places all sex offenders, not just child molesters, along a motivational continuum, Situational to Preferential,instead of into one of two categories. It is a continuum, not one or the other. p. 24

And now for the real kicker........this is the perfect example of media SPIN

DiLorenzo writes:

"There are two things society still doesn't understand about child sexual assault," Lanning said. "The first is ... child molesters can be seemingly nice people who go to church every Sunday, nurse little birdies that fall out of the trees. They're involved in the community, they volunteer."

The other is that just as offenders are not always evil to the bone, victims are not always 100 percent good. Society wants its victims to be innocent. It's cleaner that way and easier to sympathize with the victim's plight. But it's not always the truth.

WHOA! Did you see that? Notice where the quotations are.... and then notice where they are not. The quoted source is straight out of Lannings 2001 study, the 2nd paragraph is straight out of Ms. DiLorenzo's head. What Lanning actually said was:

Other than lying, there are many possible alternative explanations for why victims might allege things that do not seem to be accurate. The

child might be exhibiting distortions in traumatic memory

child’s account might reflect normal childhood fears and fantasy

child’s account might reflect misperception and confusion caused by deliberate trickery or drugs used by perpetrators

child’s account might be affected by suggestions, assumptions, and misinterpretations of overzealous interveners

child’s account might reflect urban legends and shared cultural mythology

Such factors, alone or in combination, can influence a child’s account to be inaccurate without necessarily making it a “lie.” Children are not adults in little bodies. Children go through developmental stages that must be evaluated and understood. In many ways, however, children are no better or worse than other victims or witnesses of a crime. They should not be automatically believed or dismissed. p. 109

When adults and children have sex, the child is always the victim. p. 3

Lanning goes on to decribe all the reasons children may be dishonest such as shame, fear etc. He discusses all the challenges of dealing with the young victims. Wonder why it sounds so different coming from Ms. DiLorenzo? You think she might be trying to sway opinion? Have you ever heard of anyone referencing a journalist?


Don't take my word for this, follow the links, dig a little deeper, uncover the truth for yourself! Why are they lying and distorting the truth? If you can answer that question, then you need not ask any others.

The media, journalists, reporters etc can distort truths, they can mislead and spin and lie. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Ask Dan Rather, he'll tell you.

Dear Baldur

Our new friend Baldur has 'critiqued' my post about the Lanning report here. Here's my response:

In response to this
Quote:
I*Love*Green*Olives said

Most (90% to 98%) child molesters are "situational offenders" who
abuse children because of stress or because they need a "power fix".

Lanning said p. 5

Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force on their victims.

Baldur said

There is no conflict. Situational offenders are those who are not primarily attracted to children, but offend due to other causes - they may be drunk or otherwise impaired, they may be horny and the child is the only person around, or they might just be sadistic. Most of these offenders also happen to be acquaintances of the children they offend with, and they are more likely to entice, cajole, or threaten a child than to use physical force.

The fact that you made this statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of this term. Situational offenders are the ones who use force. Preferential offenders (paedophiles) are the deceptive, manipulative ones who groom their victims.

In response to this
Quote:
Clayboy said

Most abuse is perpetrated by "situational offenders"; people who are not inherently attracted to children but use them because they see it as a convenient outlet and they are desperate.

Lanning said p. 37

Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children.

Baldur said

OK, these do conflict - but Lanning's opinion here also contradicts his opinion elsewhere, as well as the opinion of other researchers.

Yes they do conflict because it's a lie. Lanning did not contradict himself-he updated an old typology in this study. Anyone who has read it and understood it would know that. However, my position here is not to verify the validity of the Lanning study. This post was written to debunk the lies you paedophiles have attached to it.

In response to this
Quote:
Lestat said

Again, no, that is why child molesters that ARENT attracted to children molest children.

Lanning said p. 39

A high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., pedophiles).


Again.

Quote:
Lindsay Ashford, in his Wikipedia article on paedophilia, linked to the Lanning report and said:

most perpetrators of it [child sex abuse] are in fact not primarily interested in children.[28]

Lanning said p. 70

They [pedophiles] believe what they want to believe.

Baldur said

Everyone believes what they want to believe. Some have evidence for it.

Indeed. That would be me.

In response to this
Quote:
On the little girl lover forum, infinity said

Most of the people who sexually abuse kids are not peds, nor do they even have ANY sexual attraction to kids.

Lanning said p. 47

The majority of offenders who simultaneously sexually victimize multiple children are acquaintance child molesters, and most acquaintance child molesters who victimize multiple children are preferential sex offenders.

Baldur said

There is no conflict. Most child molestors are situational offenders who only offend against one child at a time. It is not surprising that the small minority who break the law with more than one child simultaneously are actually attracted to children. These are two separate groups, as the descriptions should make abundantly clear.

Once again, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding. What Lanning said is that most molesters are preferential (paedophiles) and that these same paedophiles are the ones molesting more than one child at a time.

In response to this
Quote:

ILGO said it has been repeated over and over again that 70-90% of children who were abused were so done by family or other adult known to themselves and their parents.

He even shows a graph and a link to it. He's attempting to deceive you. The graph is concerning child neglect. Of COURSE it's going to be 90% parents.......DUH
What he doesn't link to within the same study is the graph which shows that of all child sex abuse cases only 2.6% are committed by parents.
2.6%

Baldur said

I'm not familiar with the link or the study, but besides the fact that child neglect has been proven to be far more damaging than sexual abuse, and besides the fact that ILGO might have mistakenly linked the wrong graph, and besides the fact that numerous sources give the 80-90% figure, there is the simple fact that - once again - Daydreamer of Oz is equivocating. The statistic is that most offenders are family or friends - and Daydreamer only considers parents. The two groups are not the same.

Once again, lack of understanding. There was no 'mistake' here. ILGO deliberately quoted the statistics in a graph representing neglect and applied it to sexual abuse. The intent is clearly decpetion and manipulation. By attempting to shift the focus from my facts on sexual abuse to a different topic entirely (neglect) is yet another tiring attempt by a paedophile to shift blame.

And finally we have

I don't even need to go find my sources (which is handy, considering how sleepy I am at present) when Daydreamer sabotages herself repeatedly like this.

Yes, that's very handy. I dare you to prove me wrong.

Deception

The reference I’ve invariably seen every paedophile on the net refer to is: Lanning, K (2001) Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis 3rd edn, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

They deliberately mislead and lie by quoting bogus or irrelevant statistics and linking to Lanning’s report. Here are some examples:

I*Love*Green*Olives said

Most (90% to 98%) child molesters are "situational offenders" who
abuse children because of stress or because they need a "power fix".

Lanning said p. 5

Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force on their victims.

Clayboy said

Most abuse is perpetrated by "situational offenders"; people who are not inherently attracted to children but use them because they see it as a convenient outlet and they are desperate.

Lanning said p. 37

Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children.

Lestat said

Again, no, that is why child molesters that ARENT attracted to children molest children.

Lanning said p. 39

A high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., pedophiles).

Lindsay Ashford, in his Wikipedia article on paedophilia, linked to the Lanning report and said:

most perpetrators of it [child sex abuse] are in fact not primarily interested in children.[28]

Lanning said p. 70

They [pedophiles] believe what they want to believe.

On the little girl lover forum, infinity said

Most of the people who sexually abuse kids are not peds, nor do they even have ANY sexual attraction to kids.

Lanning said p. 47

The majority of offenders who simultaneously sexually victimize multiple children are acquaintance child molesters, and most acquaintance child molesters who victimize multiple children are preferential sex offenders.

ILGO said it has been repeated over and over again that 70-90% of children who were abused were so done by family or other adult known to themselves and their parents.

He even shows a graph and a link to it. He's attempting to deceive you. The graph is concerning child neglect. Of COURSE it's going to be 90% parents.......DUH
What he doesn't link to within the same study is the table which shows that of all child sex abuse cases only 2.6% are committed by parents.
2.6%

With Lindsay Ashford leading the way, these paedophiles looking to change public opinion, wanting to get the door open just a crack to tolerance of their beliefs, and on their way to the ultimate goal of abolishment of age of consent laws ........are being deceptive. It appears that they've done their homework......you only learn the truth when you read the actual studies themselves. You can't take statistics about child neglect and apply them to sex abuse. And you can't tell a flat out lie about what someone said while linking to them and not be discovered sooner or later.