In article <d4omf2$k77$1@chihuahua.databasix.com>, Enjoque
<soque@databasix.com> wrote:
> ::Y-Not:: wrote:
> > In article <d4mv7s$h0f$1@wilhelp.databasix.com>, Steve Leyland
> ><steveREMOVEDOTINVALIDTOREPLY@meow.org.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I'm a psychologist. Please leave the diagnosis to the professionals.
>
> Psychobabble word for the day: Groupthink. (see below)
>
> [...]
I don't believe in "Psychobabble". I prefer to be involved with what
WORKS, in at least a measurable amount, than with academic
theorization's. THEN we can try to explain what is actually going on.
Well, something has to go on record, so we might as well make it sound
professional. :-)
> >> BL = Boy Lover = pedophile.
> >> do you really think the children in the images you post have not been
> >> abused
> >> during the taking of those?
> >
> > Right. Some weren't, but some were. Unfortunately, what is done, is
> > already done. If their past suffering can help keep other children
> > safer, then I think it should. I know it's not the best solution, but
> > sometimes compromises have to be made, for the greater good.
>
> <mode = polite>
> I have a problem with this argument because it ignores that pictures
> _continue_ to be taken, it ignores that more children will be sought
> to create new pictures, and it tries to paint the past abuse as
> a justified expense.
> </mode>
No. Child abusers will create pictures of what they to, for their own
reasons. The nature of the situation insures this. Some unthinking
people view the pictures as "trophies" of conquests. This is not at all
the case. Those who are attracted to children, realize that they grow
up and change. With pictures, they are able to keep their memories
alive of their "loves", long after the children are no longer
attractive to them. They will share these, but almost never create them
to share.
There were two instances where a poster took pictures to order, for
Usenet requesters, of the molestations he was committing. I know quite
a lot about those situations. Those posters would still have taken
those pictures for their own "use", even if they had never had a way to
share them. Preventing them from posting, as some outraged BLs wanted
to do, would not have stopped the abuse. BUT posting the images DID.
Yes, that's right. They might never have been caught, if they hadn't
posted the EVIDENCE of what they were doing, and in a way that revealed
their physical location. With the last of these posters, I WANTED those
pictures to be posted. Many BLs were upset with me about it. Nasty with
me, too. The molester was posting some pics where parts of his body
were in view. When enough had been posted, he could be identified,
because his location was already known. There was another reason I
wanted those pictures to be posted. It was to remind the people in
these groups, that the pictures they download come from abusers like
that, and that they can't hide from themselves that children are really
being harmed for their pleasure. It was part of my anti-rationalization
work. I did tell them that.
Children aren't really sought solely to create pictures, by child
molesters. Commercial studios do that, but now rarely molest the
children, and don't usually make hard core pictures. In most cultures,
posing nude is no big deal.
By the way, those two molesters are in prison, mostly due to the
efforts of the BLs in these groups.
Well, I sort of helped a little. :-)
> >
> >> : There is another reason why this system is allowed to exist. No
> >> : matter what some "people" might want, BLs aren't going to kill
> >> : themselves. They exist. It's estimated that the average molester,
> >> : molests over 50 children before he's caught. How do we keep them away
> >> : from children? If they are fed enough porn, so they are so sexually
> >> : expended from masturbating to it, that they don't go out and find new
> >> : victims, children are going to be much safer. People who care about
> >> : children, want to do whatever is PRACTICAL, to protect them from
> >> : abuse.
> >>
> >> so your lame argument is that pedos masturbating to images of abused
> >> children will somehow stop children being abused IRL?
> >> I'd strongly argue to the contrary that such images would encourage such
> >> behaviour.
> >
> > So it is in popular fiction. Ever watch that Law and Order Special
> > Victims TV show? Do you think it's actually real?
> > There is absolutely no evidence at all that, in adults, viewing
> > pornography of any kind causes people to commit any crimes.
> > Believe me, we WANT that to be a cause. It would be wonderful to be
> > able to isolate a cause for this behavior, that we could control, but
> > in actual fact, that all the research shows, it's actually the opposite
> > that happens. Men who can satisfy themselves with images, are much less
> > likely to harm children.
>
> [...]
>
> The scope of this view is far too small. It focuses on an individual
> acting alone; it completely ignores the sense of community that evolves
> when like minded individuals gather to share picture/stories/experiences;
> it neglects to recognize the powerful drive to seek acceptance within a
> group; it ignores the rationalization of (in this context, abhorrent)
> behavior that occurs as group cohesiveness inhibits critical thought;
> and, it fails to account for the shared illusion of "It's OK because
> others are like me."
Except for the last phrase in the above paragraph, I agree.
Not one in any of these groups believes that "It's OK because
others are like me." They aren't that stupid.
> Extend the context of your analysis from a single person jacking off
> to a _group_ of people (in this case, on Usenet) sharing a common
> perversion, how groupthink affects the construction of rationalizations
> even in the presence of negative feedback, and how _enabling_ those
> rationalizations can be.
In this I very much agree, and fighting this occupies most of my work
with them, and causes most of their animosity toward me. In this
environment, *I* manage the "groupthink" on these issues, and expose
the rationalizations whenever I see them. They know this, and resent me
for it. On the other digital appendage, many of them understand and
appreciate what I do with them.
I've told them repeatedly about the insidious danger of
rationalization, as a habit, and it's mental health condition,
Disassociation. But I don't just TELL them about it. :-)
There are many popular misconceptions about pedophilia, child
molestation, and much of human sexuality. Opposing this, isn't
politically correct, so most mental health professionals don't openly
do that, thus perpetuating these actually harmful myths. :-(
I know it's asking a lot, but please trust me that I do know what I'm
doing, that I've been doing this very difficult work for years, and
that I have some very ah, authoritative backing in this. :-)
I don't do this alone, but I'm the part of it that's visible to other
newsgroupers. I don't get paid to do this, I'm retired. I volunteered,
and I'll try to do this work as long as I'm able, until I can
successfully train a replacement. So far, those who might be capable of
doing what's needed here, aren't able to make the commitment.
> --
> ,,,
> .oo
> c >
> - Soque
Usenet is a unique environment. Few really understand how participation
in these newsgroups affects people, and affects the social dynamics of
these mini societies.
All partition is voluntary. There is no group control of the various
memberships. There is little fear of retribution for outrageous
activities. There is a significant time delay in responses to
communications, and such communications can be visible for a year,
making it difficult to forgive and forget slights. Anarchism brings out
the worst in people who have little self control and large egos with no
formalized code of ethics, and it also brings out the nobility of
people who want to help others.
I've been studying newsgroups psychology and society for years, and
have made it a research project for some of my graduate students, well,
when I had them. Usenet is a goldfish bowl of anarchistic micro
societies, and is therefore a wonderful resource for some very
interesting research. :-)
By the way, I've never said, one way or the other, whether I'm a BL.
Most of them think I'm not. I think it's in the best interest of all,
that my personal status with this issue remain undetermined. Besides,
its a little fun to be mysterious. :-)
Take care,
"Those who know, know who knows."
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
|