Fraternising with the enemy! Treachery! There, I’ve said it. It’s out there. Loud but not that proud and not yet that specific either, so I’d better spit it out properly.
Deep breath. Here goes. I HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS – although I’d better deny it immediately in case they send someone to have me beheaded. Deny, that is, that they are terrorists not that I have been in talks with them.
I refer, of course, to the fearsome international terror machine that is the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Well-funded, well-equipped, its tentacles stretching around the globe, this “association” has been responsible for untold suffering through its ruthless “treatment” of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands, in its ideological heartland of Canada and worldwide. Specialising in coercion and mental torture, its “cognitive behavioural therapy” (CBT) methods used on captives have reached heights of sadistic sophistication the early Chinese pioneers of brainwashing could only dream about for their “re-education” programmes aimed at the enforced acceptance of communism.
So, you will be wondering, why would I be having anything to do with this evil force? Many of you know that I fell into the hands of forces loosely affiliated with ATSA in 2006-7. Did I succumb when I was held captive and subjected to CBT? Was I turned? Have I been cunningly embedded here on Heretic TOC as an undercover agent?
You will have to decide for yourselves on the basis of the evidence, which is essentially all of my published output since 2007, which we can notionally bundle together as Exhibit 1, with the Fragoso book review in my last blog separated out in its own tagged and sealed evidence bag as Exhibit 2. And now, as Exhibit 3, I offer an article of mine that appeared earlier this month in ATSA Forum – a secret (well, members only) strategy bulletin circulated online solely to around 4,000 elite cadres of the organisation’s ideological hierarchy: crucially, these include the brains who devise and refine the “treatment programmes” as well as the senior operatives in the field.
A defence lawyer might well argue for me that this article of mine has been planted as a Trojan Horse behind enemy lines: it seeks to humanise us heretics and hint in a subtly credible way that we are not their real enemy; thus psychologically, they may be disarmed.
So, what do I say without hiding behind a lawyer?
OK, time to drop the cloak and dagger stuff and tell you what the article is about. Copyright considerations, nothing more sinister, prevent me linking to the full text, though I hope I might get a release on that before too long.
The main aim of the 3,500-word piece is to criticise the style and content of sex offender treatment programmes in an obviously sober, careful, well-researched fashion, so that the professionals will actually take notice. The idea is that they will see a case for changing towards something that is genuinely more in society’s interests while also according much greater respect than at present to the dignity and human rights of those undergoing the courses.
It is an ambitious task but not necessarily an unrealistic one as there are reasons to believe the approach I have suggested would be far more efficient and cost-effective than standard CBT, which is massively time-consuming and often counterproductive.
To those who would say it is treacherous for a heretic to cooperate with the design and provision of any sort of programme aimed at changing the thinking of minor-attracted people, as though any such efforts amount to brainwashing, I would remind them that all education is aimed at changing our thinking (as indeed are newspaper opinion articles, conference speeches, etc.). In general we think education is a good thing. That is because we associate it not just with gaining knowledge but also with learning important skills such how to question assumptions and think for ourselves.
Thinking for ourselves is hardly what springs to mind, though, when we contemplate sex offender treatment programmes, especially when, as is often the case, they are coercively imposed on a literally captive audience in prison.
But this is my point: the courses need to be changed so that real thinking is truly encouraged rather than oppressively crushed as at present.
Whether society as a whole benefits from running offender courses is a separate issue. In principle the idea is surely sound. If an anger management programme helps someone learn to control his temper so he doesn’t beat up his wife and terrify his kids, isn’t that a good thing? The same goes for sex offending, which – let us not forget – includes violent rape and coercive child molestation. Just like adult-oriented heterosexuals, not all MAPs are well-behaved. Society, in other words, has a legitimate interest in persuading offenders to stop causing harm.
We can and should debate whether consensual MAP offences cause any harm, rather than just accepting the current authoritarian dogma that they do. Rest assured, this was an issue I addressed in my article.
Titled “What to do with the entrenched client: A paedophilic entrenched client’s view”, the piece began with a quote from an article in the academic literature:
…what do you do with the clients who are so entrenched and ‘anti’ everything? These are the clients who make our lives difficult, and who often cause us the greatest concern. Why are they so problematic?” (Wilson & Pake, 2010)
When I first saw that heartfelt plea, I thought “That’s me they’re talking about.” I had been just such a “client”, a member of the awkward squad undergoing sex offender treatment while released on licence in the second half of a 30-month sentence for distributing “indecent images of children”. They hated the fact that I asked too many questions and refused to swallow their simplistic assertions: the word “entrenched” was written into my official record.
What I now tried to get across in my article was that mainstream CBT might be OK for many offenders but not all. Troubled offenders, including those with problems such as drug addiction, depression, inability to hold down a job, etc., may readily accept that their lives need to change. In my experience they often actually welcome a firm, “no excuses” approach that forces them to face their “issues”.
But what works for these offenders can be less than useless for another group I dubbed The Dissidents – people like myself, who rail against the system, either openly or with a suppressed “silent scream” of protest. Many such offenders, I pointed out, are not only educated and astute; they may also have strong and well-grounded moral values – albeit at odds with majority opinion. I wrote:
Dissidents, as opposed to fundamentally antisocial troublemakers, respect evidence and argument. In dealing with them it is important that therapists engage in debate without worrying about having to win the argument. In the last analysis, the offender will be aware that the law is the law, and scoring points over the therapist is not going to change that. The therapist’s trump card will always be that maybe the law is not fair in all circumstances, but we must all live with it unless it is changed through the democratic process.
Instead of heavily didactic, simple messages that may be suitable for some – but not for the sincere and thoughtful Dissident – there is a need to introduce materials capable of prompting really deep discussion. These might include novels with a relevant theme written from a victim’s viewpoint, or even academic papers.
This is the point at which I gave as an example Tiger, Tiger, the memoir by Margaux Fragoso cited in my last blog Love is confoundedly complicated!
Continuing, I said that traditional CBT group therapy is set up so that participants quickly learn to self-censor in order to avoid dire consequences:
… It is a frustrating business because any attempt to string an argument together will be brusquely shut off… those seeking to curry favour with authority are often only too ready to gang up on the Dissident(s) in the group.
Enforcing resentful conformity is no way to encourage real and lasting change. The profession must have the courage to allow proper debate as to what actually causes harm to victims; including, harms caused to children by neglect, emotional abuse, violence, and chaotic dysfunction in the family. Those who read Fragoso’s memoir will find that she grew up in just such a dysfunctional, emotionally abusive family. Peter “rescued” her from it; albeit with some costs. But, if he had ever ended up in treatment no one would have wanted to know about that because such possibilities are a taboo. As long as this remains the case, therapists will lack credibility with offenders – especially the Dissident – who will continue to present intractable responsivity problems.
The more “credible” approach that I advocate would certainly be experienced as a valid debate, not a degrading insult to the intelligence such as the CBT brainwashing style seeks to impose. I am confident that, as such, it would be experienced not only as a more humane form of treatment but it would also help to reconcile the offender calmly to compliance with the law until such time as it can be reformed, rather than leaving him full of poisonous hatred towards “the system” and perhaps increasingly to society and humanity in general. This does not preclude protest and activism for change, far from it.
What truly appals me in all this, and what motivated me to write the article when the opportunity came along, is the nightmare situation faced by some of the most honest Dissidents when they are faced with indeterminate sentences from which they can be released only when they are deemed no longer to be “dangerous”. It is easy for glib liars. They can “pass” the courses with ease in Britain and elsewhere (though not perhaps the US where few escape “civil commitment”). All they need to do is say they agree with the authoritarian dogma, even if they do not believe a word of it. They don’t mind fudging the truth or telling outright whoppers.
But that strategy sticks in the throat of the sincere Dissident, who feels honour-bound to tell it like it is. By doing so, though, he guarantees that he will always “fail”: his candid difference of opinion with the authorities is deemed a thought-crime that guarantees his continued incarceration as a “dangerous” criminal. In the name of humanity and decency, we must reject this barbaric dogma.
It would be naïve as well as immodest to suppose one article is going to make a huge difference, but there has to be a start somewhere. I do believe, though, there is a chance the profession will listen: after all, as indicated in my quote from Wilson & Pake, above, the authorities are beginning to ask relevant questions; also, the sheer fact that a professional journal has been willing to carry an article under my own name from me as a known “heretic” – something unique so far as I can tell – suggests that opinion among the powers that be is not as steely and unwavering as might be supposed from the impression they so dispiritingly give in the therapy sessions.
Wilson, R.J. & Pake, D.R. (2010). Treatment readiness: Preparing sexual offenders for the process of change. In Herzog-Evans, M. (Ed.), Transnational criminology manual. Oisterwijk, Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishing.
PUBLICATION NOTE:
I have given only one reference above, to Wilson & Pake, as this is the only item to which I have referred directly. I might add, though, that some 17 references, from academic and offender sources, appeared with the ATSA article. Additionally, in order to do a thorough job of understanding all the relevant research on sex offender therapy, I found it necessary to read a number of textbooks and pushing up towards a hundred research articles.
As for getting the piece accepted, it took over two years and more drafts than I care to contemplate – with alterations required following criticism by some half dozen editors and reviewers at ATSA and Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, which is where a version of the article was first submitted. I make no complaint about this; and if people want to say my efforts are just a waste of time, or kowtowing, or Uncle Tom foolery, they won’t be raising any questions I have not asked myself. My fear is that they may be right; my hope is that they are not.
[…] Well, all you sceptics, you are not alone in going through a confusing dose of Cognitive Dissonance on this, with new facts bashing up against old experience. I feel it myself, even though another of those new facts is ATSA’s openness to at least be thinking about radical non-CBT therapy – as evidenced by its acceptance of my own recent article proposing a deeper and more humane approach. A corrective against being over-optimistically carried away has been fightback385’s comments in response to Why I am talking to the terrorists. […]
[…] I commented on Tom O’Carroll’s “Heretic” blog about the striking parallels between […]
[…] Why I am talking to the terrorists […]
I think it’s a great thing to get a discussion going with ATSA so in no way do I fault you for it. In fact, I congratulate you for having the opportunity and fortitude to do it.
I’ve been following ATSA for at least 12 years now, and I think they’ve become a bit less “extremist in their terrorism,” even though they’re still clueless in many ways. For example, they’ve backed a bit away from their abusive approach to so-called “children who molest,” in which their original founders, Judith Becker and Gene Abel, defended the coerced use of plethysmographs and aversion therapy on children as young as 12 (clearly showing zero concern for the children’s well-being) in the notorious Phoenix Memorial program when it was criticized by the ACLU in 1992. However, ATSA is still ignorant of the research on child sexuality (e.g., Floyd Martinson) and refers to children who behave sexually with each other in developmentally appropriate ways that scare Americans as “children with sexual behavior problems” (CSBP), advocating the use of drastic treatments that teach them their sexual feelings (and by implication, they themselves) are wrong and dangerous. As another example, a few years ago, ATSA finally removed a statement from its website saying that all pedophiles were child molesters, but of course it still believes all pedophiles are dangerous.
Regarding what you said about education involving learning how to question assumptions and how to think for ourselves, I think you hit the nail on the head. Without that, I wouldn’t even call it education–I’d call it training (teaching techniques) or indoctrination (transmitting beliefs). SO and CSBP treatment is clearly indoctrination: the treatment provider (hardly “therapist” since what they do is not therapeutic) is the authority, and the offender or child must only memorize and repeat, not question or think. In true education, the teacher is not authority, but expert, who has valuable knowledge and helps the student to learn why belief based on authority is unreliable, and learn the importance of evidence and logic and how to use them to gain knowledge.
Recently I’ve been following the creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution debate, and it’s a fascinating story of people’s ability (or inability) to think. Creationism, of course is the result of authoritarian thinking; people believe it because it makes them feel good and religious authority (the Bible, the pastor/priest, tradition) says it’s true, not because of evidence or logic. This is maintained by calling those who question it “heretics” and therefore evil.
And it’s amazing to see how SO and CSBP treatment parallels religious authoritarianism. (I must admit that I haven’t experienced them myself, but I base this on treatment materials I’ve read over the years and stories I’ve heard from people who’ve undergone it. So if my information is out of date, I’d like to know about it.)
“Disclosure” of past “abuse” in treatment and taking responsibility for terrible harm done to all people is identical to the public admission of and repentance for sin found in religion. In treatment, questioning with evidence or logic is stopped in its tracks with accusations of “rationalizing,” being “entrenched,” and perhaps being deluded by one’s sickness or other “pedophiles”. In church, such questioning is stopped dead by accusations of being “rebellious toward God” and perhaps deluded by “apostates” or by Satan himself. That’s why those in treatment and those in the church must be kept away from “non-believers.” Both pedophiles and the demon possessed have supernatural-like powers to deceive people and destroy children, souls, and society.
Even treatment providers are like members of the church. Treatment techniques are handed down from the authorities without being questioned because they agree with what they already believe, make the providers feel good, and are punitive toward those othered evil-doers. Some uncomfortable therapists might even avoid questioning the authorities for fear of being excommunicated from the profession and called “pedophile/devil sympathizers.”
It’s important to note than none of this treatment is based on mainstream psychological or sexological research. Treatment for other (even violent) disorders does not use such techniques.* So where did they come from? It appears that they emerged (possibly subconsciously) from Western religious ideas about sin.
The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins suggests that humans may be hard-wired toward authoritarian thinking because it aids survival for children, who need to obey parents for their protection. And, like you said, Tom, there probably are some offenders who have proven themselves in need of authorities over them, like unsocialized children. But it should be clear that in general, authoritarianism will backfire on thinking adults (and children!), leading to defiance or radicalization.
*I did want to mention that CBT is a common approach in mainstream psychotherapy, but it is miles apart from CBT for SOs, probably because its goal is the mental well-being of the client, not social control of the client. The cognitive distortions being counteracted in mainstream CBT are negative beliefs about self, not positive beliefs about sex.
Thanks for this very interesting contribution.
Yes, I like the way you have taken us through this religious analogy.
As for the positive uses of CBT, your point is well taken.
Yes, very good insights, here. I found myself in the role of “contaminant” in a group “sex offender treatment” regimen to which I was subjected more than twenty years ago. I was so “entrenched” (and outspoken) that I was hurriedly removed from the group dynamic and isolated in my very own private “therapy” sessions, safely away from the group whom I had “contaminated” (their term, by the way). At the time, that was the worst consequence of my willful obdurateness and “entrenched-ness”. I strongly suspect that now my acts would be found far less tolerable and would constitute a parole violation (or perhaps a “licence revocation” as it might be known in the U.K.) and result in my swift re-incarceration. I would point out that, given a unified and cohesive defense by “sex offenders”, much of the petty regulatory tyranny to which we are subjected would crumble rather quickly. I’m afraid, though, that the requisite high-consciousness on the part of our population is just not there.
I, too, am enthusiastic about Tom’s efforts to open a dialog with those who might previously have been (or still are) some of our greatest enemies. He’s the man to do it.
“Recently I’ve been following the creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution debate, and it’s a fascinating story of people’s ability (or inability) to think.
I’d just like to point out that some evolution supporters don’t actually understand the theory and support it out of faith. These are the type of people who’ll support anything dressed up as science without examining it critically. They annoy me to no end because they believe most of the right, good things for terrible reasons! They’re better than their opponents but they don’t inspire much confidence in their ability to arrive at the right answer in less clear-cut situations. *Cough* theism *cough*
‘That’s why those in treatment and those in the church must be kept away from “non-believers.”’
Coincidentally, I recently mentioned to a friend that I was an atheist (long story) and she was absolutely horrified. Then she remembered that I was basically a good person (you’ll have to take my word for it 🙂 ) and was very confused.
PS: I’m starting to suspect this site has a disproportionate number of atheists – but what can you expect in a place called Heretic TOC!
[…] …Why I am talking to the terrorists… […]
While it is not always true that the enemy is just someone you’ve yet to win over…I’ve often felt that they [most people] should be approached, with a dose of that mindset.
Holding a diplomatic dialogue, with those in a system oppressive towards us, with an aim to bridge understanding…that is admirable.
I don’t have any problems with this, at all. In fact, I’d like to see much more respectful “give and take” exchange, becoming the norm in how we interact with others.
Another thing…standing on their turf, while contesting and making your own case, is powerful. It says “my ideas and voice belongs here”, in a way that you just cant replicate through other venues.
This is one of the reasons, why I forge a space for myself outside of the sheltered boards…It’s important to “stand on their turf”.
…And I agree with you…Not everybody who gets caught up into the sex abuse industry, is a misunderstood saint, lacking all need for outside intervention.
Except that Tom is not infiltrating the inner sanctum through stealth or subterfuge. Were he to do so, he would soon enough be ferreted-out and his cover “blown”.
Instead, his views (as a very public heretic) have been sought-out and, it would appear, given a place at the table. It may be the “children’s table” (I don’t know) but is, in itself, quite remarkable.
I really look forward to the fruits of his labors and see no reason to view it as collaboration with the enemy camp. And, who knows? Some of those “enemies” may be more on our side than we think.
So, no, Tom’s not “The Manchurian Candidate”. Possibly, though, he IS the “Queen of Diamonds”?
“Raymond, why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?”
This could be fun!
Just two brief points.
I don’t know much (or really anything) about CBT, but surely it might be valuable to attack the whole idea on ethical (or even political) grounds as well as its application to sex offenders. I can see that there must be destructive, repetitive thought patterns that would benefit from such treatment, but the idea of changing people’s thoughts too easily shades into re-education and changing who people vote for. Are there not people who realise these dangers, nothing to do with sex offences?
Another issue is the whole purpose of SO treatment. Is it in any way concerned with the well being of the ‘client'[*]? It’s always represented (at least publicly) as about ‘impulse control’ and ‘changing behaviour’ – and, in a more sinister way, ‘changing attitudes’.
And, another point, are participants in SO treatment programmes without lurid offences encouraged to dredge up innocuous incidents from their past to appear to be ‘part of the group’?
[*] Of course the real ‘client’ is the State as they pay the bill.
Good questions here. On “changing people’s thoughts” I think I will simply stand by what I said: all education (which is generally a good thing) changes people’s thoughts.
Yes, it is sinister, which is why CBT is wrong when applied in a bid to push the state’s agenda rather than the “client’s”. That is basically why my article seeks to replace CBT with two-way discussion, except in cases where the client already feels in need of the help CBT might be able to give.
Fortunately, I have now received copyright clearance to link to the article, which I will do shortly, perhaps with some further contextual introduction.
You ask: “Are there not people who realise these dangers, nothing to do with sex offences?”
Yes, there are, and in recent years they have become more vocal within the profession. A longer version of my article, originally intended for SAJRT, included a major critique of Orwellian aspects of therapy such as the concept of “cognitive distortion”. I hope before too long to submit a re-edit of this longer piece to another academic journal. Note, though, that the profession itself (or best practice with it) has now rejected “cognitive distortion” as unscientific and unhelpful.
Tom,
Can you site an article where “Cognitive Distortion” is now seen as unscientific and unhelpful?
Linca
Gannon, T. A., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2006). Cognitive distortions in child molesters: A re-examination of key theories and research. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(8), 1000-1019.
Marshall, W.L., Marshall L.E. & Kingston, D.A. (2011). Are the cognitive distortions of child molesters in need of treatment? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 118-129.
Maruna, S., & Mann, R. (2006) “A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 11, 155–177.
I think this is great, Tom.
And you had me worried with your last piece – I was half expectng a post entitled something like “why I now believe paedophilia is wrong”!
We exist in a world in which nearly everything that is said about paedophilia and paedophiles in the popular, and not so ‘popular, discourse is either misguided, unrepresentative or quite simply wrong.
Yet public policy seems to be made on the basis of these mistaken narratives – it’s in the interests of those concerned with reducing child abuse to base their actions and deliberations on something approaching the truth rather than fantasy, as it has been till now.
But to do so would mean them accepting a softer, more human, conception of the ‘paedophile’, and ditching the grotesque caricature and monster that sells tabloid papers and fuels the hysteria.
There is resistance to this – when I’ve tried to put forwards a more realistic idea of what it is to be a paedophile I’ve often felt people are more comfortable with the simplicities of the ‘monster’ than with the complexities and nuances of a ‘man’ (or ‘woman’).
But the humanisation of the paedophile would be a huge step forwards, since it would involve a greater perception of those ‘truths’ that are evident to us but completely unknown to the general population.
Getting your piece published behind enemy lines is good news – I hope you’ll keep us informed of any follow-up and responses your article elicits.
Lensman,
We are getting support from someone in Berlin who identifies as anon. I was watching a livestream from Ferguson the other night and monitoring the social stream. This person said, “I hate people who hate gays and pedophiles”.
Maybe we should start saying that. No one in the stream acted upset with what anon said.
Linca
There seems to be some movement happening in the minds of certain non-paedophiles.
It may just be my peculiar experience, but I’ve three or four real-life friends, all of who are definitely ‘nons’, who in the last year have expressed the belief that there is nothing wrong with paedophilia were it not for the stigma, and if practiced correctly.
These were just friends I got to know socially or through work – not from a sex-addicton group or a radical thinkers society or anything like that.
I suspect that there are a lot of ‘nons’ with doubts regarding the hysteria, but who are afraid to explore those doubts and who are certainly afraid of sharing them or expressing them.
Maybe it will only take one or two, brave, maybe foolhardy, voices to break the embargo on thinking rationally on this issue and allow an open public debate to take place. I sense that there is a kind of discontent brewing with the hysteria…
You might be interested in an article called When None Dare Urge Restraint which discusses the way a spiral of ignorant hatred can pick up momentum.
Also, not related to your comment but vaguely related to peadophilia: New Math, by Bo Burnham.
Love the bit about stupidity of calling terrorists cowards. Also, Bo Burnham’s finale is agreeably daring!
If they’re under 13 just do them in your head…lol
I’ve heard him tell lots of pedophilia-related jokes but none that I’ve heard were undeniably anti. He might even be a covert ally.
You might be particularly tickled by this line from Love Is: “I need you like… boys tossing salad need a little bit of Neverland Ranch.”
Do you have a copy/recording of this live stream?
James,
I saw those words “I hate people who hate gays and pedophiles” on the livestream website “Global Revolution” http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution There is no way to save the social stream on the sidebar. If I had had presence of mind I could have snagged a screen shot but I didn’t.
Those plain words stood out like the plain words in Galileo’s “Dialogue”. Maybe that is what we need to begin using, plain words. First though we have to find the plain words that describe who we humans are, that describe the hundreds of thousands of years we became human, that describe the significance to us.
For far too long in current history we have thought we can change humans to fit society when we need to be thinking the other way around: How can we change society to fit the humans we are? Maybe we need to write our own “Dialogue” presenting both arguments in the same book. One we must fit humans to society the other we must fit society to humans. That is what Galileo did in “Dialogue”, an easily readable lively series of discussions about the cosmos one series arguing for a stationary earth at the center the other favoring the sun.
That is our argument, so to speak, that we must solve before we can move to a new and better future. We cannot move to B without solving A: Who are we humans? Should we be changed to fit society or should society be changed to fit us? Or, is trying to change humans to fit society the crux of all our problems, i.e., school and psychology?
Linca
I’d like to add my congratulations to you, Tom, for what you’ve achieved. One of the things it shows is that the people who work in these organisations are not all monsters (though I think some are) and we need to reach out to the more rational among them,. This is also what we are trying to do at IPP, our nascent minor-attracted group.
This is probably a stupid question, but what’s ‘IPP’?
Rather a good question I would have thought. I thought it was ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection’ – the notorious UK ‘indeterminate sentence’.
Actually, the full name of our group is ‘In Pleasanter Places Minor Attraction UK’, abbreviated to ‘IPPMA UK’
Not a stupid question at all! Actually, my reference was a little cryptic, since, now I come to think about it,although the subject has been raised on this blog before, I don’t think it’s been referred to by that name. ‘IPP’ stands for ‘In Pleasanter Places’ and was set up by me and another MAP, Adam Powell, as a sort of British version of the American group B4U-ACT, which campaigns for better mental health services for minor attracted people. (See http://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/map-ing-the-terrain-of-better-therapy/) The project is in its early stages and we still don’t have a proper web site, but we are slowly gathering members and we do run a private blog called the ‘Forum for Understanding Minor Attraction’, which people can apply to join (It’s not limited to the minor-attracted: anyone who is sympathetic can be considered.)
“It’s not limited to the minor-attracted: anyone who is sympathetic can be considered.”
*Cautiously raises hand*
Sure! E-mail me at stephenjames465@yahoo.co.uk and I’ll give you further details.
Sending an email now 🙂
Ours will be advancement at a snails pace. Like walking through molasses. I think what you did was good. Sadly many of these therapists will see this as “look at how they rationalize their opinion, see how entrenched they get themselves” and not as if it is a valid different perspective. However, as you pointed out in a comment, not all will see it like that. Many are still open to different ideas.
Kinda off topic, about rationalization. We often get accused of it. However when Ken Lanning of the FBI reports giggling, happy, smiling kids in sexual interactions enjoying it and feeling pleasure, they try to rationalize it as if it was bad. Using words like “seduced” and “groomed”. Convincing the world that even though the kids enjoyed it, had fund, consented, and maybe even initiated it, that they are still harmed, still ruined, and the loving adults involved are still evil monsters.
Amazing.
Tom,
The therapists are insane. Trying to convince an insane person of anything is impossible. Find a weapon that we can win with. Get a tank which is what you British did in WW1 at the Battle of Amiens.
Out of the box Tom:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04f8cw8/our-world-war-3-war-machine#group=p024lv9m
Linca
This is a very sweeping generalisation, Linca, and indeed I would expect no less from you!
However, the editor of ATSA Forum is himself a senior practising therapist and he has decided to run my article. In some people’s eyes that alone might be considered grounds for saying he is insane, but the people saying it would probably be other therapists i.e. those of the more inflexible sort!
This editor actually said a few words about my piece in his editorial article for the current issue. Here is what he wrote:
Does this sound insane to you? If so, if you are absolutely determined to see nothing but bad in “the other side”, so to speak, don’t you think you are being a bit “tribal” in your response? To see things always as a Zero Sum Game of Us v. Them strikes me as pretty much a guarantee that we are always going to get flattened. You mention tanks: realistically, we haven’t got any and are not going to get any, unless you know something I don’t. So we need another strategy.
Speaking of tanks, by the way, whatever happened to your “mankind is naturally a peaceful species” beliefs?
I’m actually quite relieved to read this piece by Tom. After his earlier post, in which he had prepared us for, what I could only imagine, as some shocking repudiation of all that we had come to find in him both courageous and insightful, turned out to be a very reasonable and cogent plan. Relieved that my response did not have to begin with something like: “By sheer coincidence, I had just finished watching the 1950’s horror classic ” The invasion of the Body Snatchers”. Never would I have imagined that our own Tom O’Carroll would have undergone just such a radical transformation. I was going to suggest that he look for some giant empty seed pod in his closet that could provide the only reasonable explanation for his apparent metamorphosis.”
My worst fear was that he would announce his intention to assume a leadership position within VirPed as their leading spokesperson. So I can rest a bit easier tonight on this rather too hard hotel bed, after painfully typing\tapping out my gratitude to him on an impossibly, ridiculously small keyboard.
By the way, Palm Springs is overrated.
And Tom, please try not to scare us so much in future!
>My worst fear was that he would announce his intention to assume a leadership position within VirPed
LOL
>Palm Springs is overrated.
I agree. I drove through what seemed a very straggly, strung-out place back in ’88. On a stop of maybe half an hour or so, I saw a tawdry town stuffed with vulgar shopping facilities for folks with more money than they knew how to spend sensibly. Glad to drive out again into the much richer desert, in the clean crisp air of a bright January day.
>And Tom, please try not to scare us so much in future!
Yes, maybe I overdid it with the “expectation management” stuff! It’s just that beforehand, when I “came out” to a friend about this ATSA piece, I wrongly assumed he would be OK with it. His response, it seemed to me, was one of barely suppressed annoyance and disappointment, as though I had indeed been fraternising with the enemy. The big build-up on H-TOC did at least serve notice that I believed I could justify whatever decision I had taken.
Maybe it was mismanaged expectations? You expected your friend to be fine and they weren’t so you took the exact opposite tack with all of us… and we were fine. LOL
>… and we were fine
But would everyone have been so fine without some prior background, including the Fragoso review?
Maybe I shouldn’t have said “expectation management”. Nobody likes the idea they are being managed, or manipulated. My use of the term was an ironic reference to seemingly cynical machinations by slick politicians – although their best laid plans often go awry!
Well I’d be fine since I’m a Utilitarian. “Fraternising with the enemy” does not compute.
After the massive fanfare it actually is quite exciting to see you attempt to engage in a debate with these folk and I’d certainly be very interested in reading the whole article. Whilst you mention the strenuous process of having your piece accepted, you don’t mention how the opportunity initially came along. As you say it’s something of a unique achievement suggesting a glimmer of an open mind somewhere within the ATSA hierarchy, perhaps you could tell us more about how it arose.
One of the great problems with the CBT therapy for The Dissidents is that they are most often significantly above average intelligence and have been forced by their own circumstances to exercise their thinking capabilities and challenge a great deal from an early age. The average therapist however, one that is happy to conform to the CBT book, needs already to have mutely accepted a large degree of brain washing through adherence to the system and, instead of having an open mind must, at least to some extent, have it shut – at which point any ‘really deep discussion’ cannot be practicable.
One would like to think that there are some therapists currently within the system with whom deep and meaningful discussion can be had, but I rather doubt that that is the case (did you ever come across one?).
The good news, however, is that once your fundamental precepts have taken hold at the top, as surely they must, the situation on the ground will next be addressed. After which, of course, the additional, deeply distasteful, aspect of S.O. Therapy as a Money-spinning Business Bonanza (particularly in the US) will be examined also.
As a modest and practical ‘first-step’ suggestion perhaps the ATSA could offer to fund a band of Dissidents to start up both a re-education camp for current CBT therapists, and a training camp for future dissident therapists (and business managers) to infiltrate and intelligently reason from within!
Gotta start somewhere!
I love your suggestion in penultimate para. As for the opportunity to publish, etc., it’s a saga in itself. I’ll try to get back to it.
By the way, weren’t the “indecent” images you were convicted for some plain pictures of children on the public beaches in Qatar? If so, then indecency must be a pervasive and unrestricted practice down there… (joking apart, not even Victorianism reached such levels).
In the first instance, yes. But there was an entirely different scenario later, when an undercover cop got to work. For the full story see here, in the section headed Crime and Punishment : http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Tom_O%27Carroll_Biography
If your original piece is sufficiently removed from the version you published, you could put that up.
The main question is why “sex offenders” should at all be a matter for psychology and psychiatry. “Offenders” are people who have broken some laws, and as such they should be a matter for law enforcement agencies, while clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are professionals who study mental processes in order to help people, and not those in power: you cannot serve two masters. The judicial system managed to separate itself from religion, so why is it so difficult to get rid of psychiatry?
Because psychology is useful as a weapon of the state. We assume, given the traditional patient-client relationship, that the medicalized model of service is an innate quality within psychology. We only need to look to the many uses to which it has been put to see that the “science” (to the extent that it is “a science”) of psychology is entirely neutral as to the uses to which it is applied. As with chemistry, whose insights produce chemicals such as Zyklon B, equally useful as either an insecticide or as a means of annihilating humans, psychology is no different. The bigger question is: why do we tolerate government to use these tools to destroy its citizens, cynically representing harm as “therapy”?
Your quote from Wilson, R.J. & Pake, D.R. makes me think of how do you solve a problem like Maria. 🙂
I don’t see why one would be upset by this. At the very least, my Utilitarian Ethics say that moving the world from State A which is crap to State B which is slightly less crap is good.
I’m glad you went through with it but I don’t have all that much confidence in its ability to cause change. Which isn’t to say they wont try to implement it (they might!) but I don’t believe much will really change. In my experience of schools, the Education Ministry always has bright ideas about student involvement and debate – and then when the teachers implement it it’s a farce. The existing structure just doesn’t allow for the free exchange of ideas. It might be worse in prisons. The teachers merely view their charges as inferior; many councilors view them as actively evil!
Sorry for the doom and gloom. Today is a day for celebration!
Forms of Dissention
Some burrs under my saddle are those who, rather than responsibly loving boys ( http://www.shfri.net/philos.html ), instead use boys solely to satisfy their sexual craving. And, although my positions on the benignity of Boy Erotica were first published a decade ago (http://www.shfri.net/effects/effects.cgi ), why some foolishly engage in exchanging such materials in ways that all too often lead to headlines which besmirch all of those who try to behave “responsibly” (see above).
So while TOC’s approach to “better treatment of sex offenders” obviously might make life more bearable for some, I would rather cast myself in the role of “dissident” by addressing the disease, rather then the symptoms, by publishing works such as The Role of Androphilia in the Psychosexual Development of Boys ( http://www.boyandro.info ), and by posting – and some day hopefully publishing – The Missing Mechanism of Harm in Consensual Sexually Expressed Boyhood Relationships with Older Males (http://www.shfri.net/mech/mech.cgi ).
And while I am being outrageously dissentious (is that a word?) let me purloin an aphorism that is otherwise in disrepute, but may be applicable in our community: ” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Marx, 1875).
Brilliant Tom. Inclusion by stealth and leave the unacceptable aspects out in the cold! It’s been done before by other minorities… I leave it to more linguistically/philosophically gifted posters to expand on this but the vibe is good.