Sexual symbolism/harassment/child molestation
July 15, 2011
If anyone who was involved in the publication of the report “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children” objects to my putting excerpts from it on my blog, please let me know.
I put the excerpts in quotes.
I put my comments in the format that I usually use for what I write myself that involves information first written or otherwise expressed by other people, with the date at the top of the section and “Copyright, with noted exceptions, Lena Kochman July 15, 2011” and the time.
I had a bad day the other day, and I made a comment on Weebly about how I was “OK” with it if people saw the irony in certain page numbers that I chose to get material from for excerpts being much like other numbers that are familiar to many as specific code. I’m sorry that I did that; it makes my task in decoding my own existence as much as possible more difficult every time that I do something like that. I’m also sorry that I did that because there are a lot of people in the entertainment industry who are involved in promoting pedophilia now, and, whatever their motivation is for doing it, whether they understand what the consequences to others are of their behavior or not, putting all of the blame on one or a few of them rather than distributing it among them as a group probably isn’t fair.
I needed to say what I said in the previous paragraph because there are too many numbers in what I’m going to put on Weebly today for me to not to have written the previous paragraph and then to go on to avoid a lot of confusion and subsequent problems.
I do think that some of the share of blame depends in part on how influential the person is, how old he or she is, how much life experience and education he or she has and how reasonable it is to expect that he or she ought to know better.
Also; the famous people who have had the most interaction with me over the Internet, whose lives have been the most closely linked with mine, and who have become proponents of the things which I oppose have had their code names, numbers and other things associated with them used much more often by people who want to promote things that I oppose than have other people who might be even more famous or immediately influential and who have the same kinds of websites and have done the same kinds of things. They know that, and so, in fact, the people who have been the ones that I’ve interacted with the most and who are have been involved in promoting those terrible issues are the ones of their group who have the most direct responsibility and who both will be blamed the most and ought to be blamed the most, and who deserve to be the most damaged by any scandal around those issues. That's not a good reason for me to make an impulsive decision that is confusing about code, such as making a sarcastic choice and comment about page numbers that I didn't have to choose from a report at that time, but it is a very good reason for those people to stop promoting those issues.
Whatever errors I made in judgement about how to express my thoughts about the issues, whatever things I did in moments when I leapt to defend people who were promoting the issues before I had looked at everything that they were doing, whatever other mistakes I've made and problems I've had, there is nobody now who cannot understand the principles of what I've said over and over again, or who ought to be failing to understand the consequences of their actions.
Today, I started with excerpts from the Introduction of the report because on my first blog page on Weebly today, I restated my opinion about why there seem to be more women interested in molesting children than I had first thought there were going to be. I had already read some of the Introduction before today, although I hadn’t noticed the page numbers for it then. I knew that the offenders were mostly described with the pronoun “he” throughout the report, so I thought it was important to include that.
The Introduction also stated something which I could use as an important example for the basis of some of my objections to rationalizations that seem to have been made by a lot of people who have been supporting child molestation and other human rights abuses. That idea is in the second excerpt, and it’s from there that I wrote most of what I had to say on this page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from and my comments about:
“Child Molesters:
A Behavioral Analysis
For Professionals Investigating the
Sexual Exploitation of Children
Fifth Edition
2010
Kenneth V. Lanning
Former Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Copyright © 2010 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children®.
All rights reserved.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the “Introduction (begins on p.17):”
“Although females can and do molest children, offenders will
generally be referred to by the pronoun “he.” (p.17)”
“….The sexual victimization of children involves varied and diverse dynamics. It can
range from one-on-one intrafamilial abuse to multioffender/multivictim extrafamilial
sex rings and from nonfamily abduction of toddlers to prostitution of teenagers.
Sexual victimization of children can run the gamut of “normal” sexual acts from
fondling to intercourse. The victimization can also include deviant sexual behavior
involving more unusual conduct (e.g., urination, defecation, playing dead) that often
goes unrecognized, including by statutes, as possibly being sexual in nature. (p.18)”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 15, 2011
I put the bold print in the previous paragraph to underline a point that has been a major component of the worst things that President Obama has endorsed over the past year and a half.
I’m talking specifically about the President here because it seems to me that he, as a lawyer, has exploited the idea that there may be no specific laws prohibiting doing things such as covering websites with pictures of fish or of children in water in order to promote sexual harassment and the sexual exploitation of children. I don’t think that he’s right about it; for example, I think that in any workplace, even one where fish DO get sold, making a lot of comments about fish around a woman or around women when you don’t have to make those comments as part of the conversation about work is sexual harassment. Even in that setting, people who want to harass someone who go out of their way to make unnecessary comments will defend themselves by saying “I’m only talking about work,” and that’s a lie. Certainly over the past year and a half, ALL of that kind of behavior, in every setting where it has occurred, has been harassment and part of the harassment has involved lying about it: “I’m only talking about this, that and the other thing that have all been used as harassment terms and everybody knows it,” “I’m only coughing excessively and all the time that I see you or I’m so loud that it’s obvious that I’m trying to make you hear me even if I don’t know exactly where you are,” “I’m only this,” “I’m only that…” No. It’s all harassment. It’s not supposed to be happening.
I’ve been saying since last year that important questions to ask about these situations are:
--What do you intend to accomplish with your behavior?
and
--What is the result of your behavior?
Fish, cheese, and other things that have been used as part of the harassment have had both quotidian, nonsexual connotations and specifically sexual connotations previous to everything that’s happened over the past year and a half. To insist on defining as innocuous the continual, excessive use of those words and their corresponding images in the media and everywhere else that they’ve appeared is dishonest and an abuse of the intention of laws that are supposed to prevent things such as sexual harassment.
Not only have things that already had a sexual connotation been exploited, but a sexual connotation has been given to other words and situations that didn’t have as much of an obvious sexual connotation before or that had no sexual connotation before. For example, the constant news stories about flooding and the government bribes given to communities who participate in them have given floods and flooding that connotation. That connotation has also been given to everything having to do with water, rain, even boats; that list goes on and on.
Once something takes on a symbolic meaning that is understood by a lot of people, you can’t pretend that the meaning isn’t there. Everyone who’s still insisting that there’s nothing wrong with going out of your way to put pictures of children at the beach on your websites or on the front page of a newspaper in spite of what’s been happening is being disingenuous about the situation now. As for people who spend time thinking of and publishing things that are obviously sexually suggestive about children, and that would have been recognizable as being suggestive even before any of what’s happened over the past year had happened; there’s no excuse for that at all.
Last year, when the harassment of me had first become sexual, I expressed the thought that things would likely go back to normal if the media and others who had been perpetuating the harassment were careful not to do things such as put pictures of fish on the front page of the newspaper or in news stories for a while, maybe for a year, until the extra emphasis on the symbolic, sexual meaning of those things that had started because of my being harassed had gone away.
Unfortunately, there was such an effort made by the big harassers and their supporters to keep the harassment going that I don’t now know how long it would take for that extra emphasis to go away, if it ever will go away. As I’ve illustrated in the past few weeks, the situation doesn’t have much to do with harassing me in particular anymore; it is a campaign by the big harassers to permanently degrade and marginalize all girls and women, forever.
It seems to me that the same thing that has happened with what was at first sexual harassment of me is probably starting to be true about pictures of and stories about children doing things that had no sexual connotation up until last year, when sexual symbolism began to be added unto those activities by people in the media, politics and some businesses who were interested in making child molestation a socially and legally accepted part of everyday life. Although I think that things such as photographing children in clothing that said “Fish” or had pictures of sea life on it or surrounding pictures of children with ads for fish, cheese, wine and other things that already had a sexual connotation were immediately recognizable as attempts to sexualize children, it seems to me that things such as pictures of children at the beach or swimming, in the rain, and other things that didn’t previously have an obvious sexual connotation now do have a sexual connotation as a result of what has happened.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman July 15, 2011 @4:04 p.m./ additions and edits @ 4:10 p.m.
July 15, 2011
If anyone who was involved in the publication of the report “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children” objects to my putting excerpts from it on my blog, please let me know.
I put the excerpts in quotes.
I put my comments in the format that I usually use for what I write myself that involves information first written or otherwise expressed by other people, with the date at the top of the section and “Copyright, with noted exceptions, Lena Kochman July 15, 2011” and the time.
I had a bad day the other day, and I made a comment on Weebly about how I was “OK” with it if people saw the irony in certain page numbers that I chose to get material from for excerpts being much like other numbers that are familiar to many as specific code. I’m sorry that I did that; it makes my task in decoding my own existence as much as possible more difficult every time that I do something like that. I’m also sorry that I did that because there are a lot of people in the entertainment industry who are involved in promoting pedophilia now, and, whatever their motivation is for doing it, whether they understand what the consequences to others are of their behavior or not, putting all of the blame on one or a few of them rather than distributing it among them as a group probably isn’t fair.
I needed to say what I said in the previous paragraph because there are too many numbers in what I’m going to put on Weebly today for me to not to have written the previous paragraph and then to go on to avoid a lot of confusion and subsequent problems.
I do think that some of the share of blame depends in part on how influential the person is, how old he or she is, how much life experience and education he or she has and how reasonable it is to expect that he or she ought to know better.
Also; the famous people who have had the most interaction with me over the Internet, whose lives have been the most closely linked with mine, and who have become proponents of the things which I oppose have had their code names, numbers and other things associated with them used much more often by people who want to promote things that I oppose than have other people who might be even more famous or immediately influential and who have the same kinds of websites and have done the same kinds of things. They know that, and so, in fact, the people who have been the ones that I’ve interacted with the most and who are have been involved in promoting those terrible issues are the ones of their group who have the most direct responsibility and who both will be blamed the most and ought to be blamed the most, and who deserve to be the most damaged by any scandal around those issues. That's not a good reason for me to make an impulsive decision that is confusing about code, such as making a sarcastic choice and comment about page numbers that I didn't have to choose from a report at that time, but it is a very good reason for those people to stop promoting those issues.
Whatever errors I made in judgement about how to express my thoughts about the issues, whatever things I did in moments when I leapt to defend people who were promoting the issues before I had looked at everything that they were doing, whatever other mistakes I've made and problems I've had, there is nobody now who cannot understand the principles of what I've said over and over again, or who ought to be failing to understand the consequences of their actions.
Today, I started with excerpts from the Introduction of the report because on my first blog page on Weebly today, I restated my opinion about why there seem to be more women interested in molesting children than I had first thought there were going to be. I had already read some of the Introduction before today, although I hadn’t noticed the page numbers for it then. I knew that the offenders were mostly described with the pronoun “he” throughout the report, so I thought it was important to include that.
The Introduction also stated something which I could use as an important example for the basis of some of my objections to rationalizations that seem to have been made by a lot of people who have been supporting child molestation and other human rights abuses. That idea is in the second excerpt, and it’s from there that I wrote most of what I had to say on this page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from and my comments about:
“Child Molesters:
A Behavioral Analysis
For Professionals Investigating the
Sexual Exploitation of Children
Fifth Edition
2010
Kenneth V. Lanning
Former Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Copyright © 2010 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children®.
All rights reserved.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the “Introduction (begins on p.17):”
“Although females can and do molest children, offenders will
generally be referred to by the pronoun “he.” (p.17)”
“….The sexual victimization of children involves varied and diverse dynamics. It can
range from one-on-one intrafamilial abuse to multioffender/multivictim extrafamilial
sex rings and from nonfamily abduction of toddlers to prostitution of teenagers.
Sexual victimization of children can run the gamut of “normal” sexual acts from
fondling to intercourse. The victimization can also include deviant sexual behavior
involving more unusual conduct (e.g., urination, defecation, playing dead) that often
goes unrecognized, including by statutes, as possibly being sexual in nature. (p.18)”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 15, 2011
I put the bold print in the previous paragraph to underline a point that has been a major component of the worst things that President Obama has endorsed over the past year and a half.
I’m talking specifically about the President here because it seems to me that he, as a lawyer, has exploited the idea that there may be no specific laws prohibiting doing things such as covering websites with pictures of fish or of children in water in order to promote sexual harassment and the sexual exploitation of children. I don’t think that he’s right about it; for example, I think that in any workplace, even one where fish DO get sold, making a lot of comments about fish around a woman or around women when you don’t have to make those comments as part of the conversation about work is sexual harassment. Even in that setting, people who want to harass someone who go out of their way to make unnecessary comments will defend themselves by saying “I’m only talking about work,” and that’s a lie. Certainly over the past year and a half, ALL of that kind of behavior, in every setting where it has occurred, has been harassment and part of the harassment has involved lying about it: “I’m only talking about this, that and the other thing that have all been used as harassment terms and everybody knows it,” “I’m only coughing excessively and all the time that I see you or I’m so loud that it’s obvious that I’m trying to make you hear me even if I don’t know exactly where you are,” “I’m only this,” “I’m only that…” No. It’s all harassment. It’s not supposed to be happening.
I’ve been saying since last year that important questions to ask about these situations are:
--What do you intend to accomplish with your behavior?
and
--What is the result of your behavior?
Fish, cheese, and other things that have been used as part of the harassment have had both quotidian, nonsexual connotations and specifically sexual connotations previous to everything that’s happened over the past year and a half. To insist on defining as innocuous the continual, excessive use of those words and their corresponding images in the media and everywhere else that they’ve appeared is dishonest and an abuse of the intention of laws that are supposed to prevent things such as sexual harassment.
Not only have things that already had a sexual connotation been exploited, but a sexual connotation has been given to other words and situations that didn’t have as much of an obvious sexual connotation before or that had no sexual connotation before. For example, the constant news stories about flooding and the government bribes given to communities who participate in them have given floods and flooding that connotation. That connotation has also been given to everything having to do with water, rain, even boats; that list goes on and on.
Once something takes on a symbolic meaning that is understood by a lot of people, you can’t pretend that the meaning isn’t there. Everyone who’s still insisting that there’s nothing wrong with going out of your way to put pictures of children at the beach on your websites or on the front page of a newspaper in spite of what’s been happening is being disingenuous about the situation now. As for people who spend time thinking of and publishing things that are obviously sexually suggestive about children, and that would have been recognizable as being suggestive even before any of what’s happened over the past year had happened; there’s no excuse for that at all.
Last year, when the harassment of me had first become sexual, I expressed the thought that things would likely go back to normal if the media and others who had been perpetuating the harassment were careful not to do things such as put pictures of fish on the front page of the newspaper or in news stories for a while, maybe for a year, until the extra emphasis on the symbolic, sexual meaning of those things that had started because of my being harassed had gone away.
Unfortunately, there was such an effort made by the big harassers and their supporters to keep the harassment going that I don’t now know how long it would take for that extra emphasis to go away, if it ever will go away. As I’ve illustrated in the past few weeks, the situation doesn’t have much to do with harassing me in particular anymore; it is a campaign by the big harassers to permanently degrade and marginalize all girls and women, forever.
It seems to me that the same thing that has happened with what was at first sexual harassment of me is probably starting to be true about pictures of and stories about children doing things that had no sexual connotation up until last year, when sexual symbolism began to be added unto those activities by people in the media, politics and some businesses who were interested in making child molestation a socially and legally accepted part of everyday life. Although I think that things such as photographing children in clothing that said “Fish” or had pictures of sea life on it or surrounding pictures of children with ads for fish, cheese, wine and other things that already had a sexual connotation were immediately recognizable as attempts to sexualize children, it seems to me that things such as pictures of children at the beach or swimming, in the rain, and other things that didn’t previously have an obvious sexual connotation now do have a sexual connotation as a result of what has happened.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman July 15, 2011 @4:04 p.m./ additions and edits @ 4:10 p.m.