For discussion: If you were a pedophile
 

I've thought about this a bit, and would like to hear your thoughts.

It seems to me that pedophilia isn't a choice (and who would choose it?); it's more of a sexual orientation. An unwanted one in our society and, I think most would agree, almost a universally stigmatized behavior. It's abhorrent in a way homosexuality isn't to me, because it involves contact with a person who is not old enough to consent.

But let's say you are a young man, and you come to realize that your sexual preference really is prepubescent children. What the hell do you do?

-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator
--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help
--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?
--become a priest or a boy scout leader?
--blow your head off because there's no hope?

:headshake I just don't know. And glad it's not me!

I cannot relate at all to this "behavior." If I even begin to think about it, as a parent ... I have VERY negative thoughts. If it were my kid ...

I, too, find it very hard to relate to the monsters of our world. But there are plenty of them out there--how do they live with themselves?

What if you were a good man otherwise, but realized that you liked little kids that way. I mean, I just can't imagine . . .

Isn't there a chemical castration option? I mean sure, it's no good when it's done involuntarily to Alan Turing, but if it's voluntary... My understanding is that if you have no sex drive at all, you are never compelled to act on anything even if your brain is still wired the same way.

I really don't know how prevalent that is for voluntary procedures. I think that would be in the "therapy" option. I also think it would take a brave and strong person to walk into a psychiatrist's office and talk about those urges and request that.

This one is a tough one for me because it's taken a very long time to get people to accept the fact the being GAY is something you are born as. Imagine trying to get recognition for pedophile rights. (excluding NAMBLA. Their delusional freaks).
Added to this, my own experience as a victim when i was a kid.

So if I had been born a pedophile, I would hope I'd have the courage to put a stop to the behaviour in any way possible.

But 2000 years ago, it was common practice and considered honorable in Greece, for learned men to accept young boys as pupils and lovers.

Louis Theroux (English broadcaster) dealt with this very issue in A Place for Paedophiles, a one-hour show set in a holding/ rehabilitation facility in California. The inmates have all served the sentences mandated by law, and are being held indefinitely in the public interest.

Very few make it through the program. Many refuse even to participate. Those that do are subjected to a battery of tests, one of which is the "peter metre". Developed during the Vietnam era, to determine whether men were really gay or just trying to avoid the draft (I bet it got more negatives than positives - patriotic gay Americans kept their mouths shut) it measures involuntary arousal to images shown.

Those that make it through, and are deemed no longer a threat can remain incarcerated for years awaiting a safe place to live.

These men are no longer criminals. So they have every possible state paid luxury you can have while still having your freedom denied. Three square meals, cable tv, classes, exercise etc etc. Something that must rip a hole in right wing sensibilities.

Re the OP - I'd simply deny myself.
But I'm not that way inclined and have no idea how I'd feel if I was.
I've been celibate since the last world cup, and now my libido is waking up I find myself getting blinding headaches when I masturbate. Go figure. I'm glad I don't believe in God.

It was mostly acceptable for straight men to rape women back then too. I don't think it's about the orientation either then or now, it's about the rights of the other person.

If everything about me stayed the same except for that one compulsion, I would probably feel incredibly guilty about it and would try to suppress it. The shame would also make me try to hide it, which means I wouldn't seek help or treatment.

This is an interesting question, but really unanswerable. I'm not a monster now, and I'd like to say that if I were a monster I wouldn't act like a monster. But the reality is probably that if I were a monster I'd probably act like one.

I remember seeing a programme about paedophilia that was very interesting. One of the issues it raised is that there are different kinds of paedophile. There are those who are aroused by youngsters but who see it as a a kind of *thinks* 'beautiful' awakening of that youngster. They tend not to be violent or engage in rape. They tend more towards touching and 'loving' the child. Then there are those who view kids as there to be preyed upon; quite literally: there is a book that was circulated underground giving tips on how to groom, and and how to get into the affections of a family with children (for example). They are often violent and see the children as sexually aware teases.

Acting on either impulse is wrong (in my and most people's view) but...they are not the same thing. One is 'accidentally' harmful to a child they most likely love. The other is wilfully harmful to a child they have objectified. To me it is wrong to treat these two very different kinds of people as if they were the same, and equally 'evil'.

As to the OP: I'm really not sure, but I suspect i would lean towards celibacy, and 'satisfy' my compulsion through fantasy and pictures.

So even when you masturbate you slam into the headboard? hehehehe

I don't think there is a good answer, because frankly, we are not sure about this stuff; not sure if it's an inate "orientation"; if it is something that can be changed, or even treated effectively.

Dana: doesn't that first category just scream Michael Jackson? and, if celibacy is an option, is that why we get so many clergy afflicted with this? Maybe they're thinking, if I go into a celibate profession I can just not act this out with God's help.

I think that's a good point Cloud. And yes it does just scream Michael Jackson.

Y'know i saw a brilliant film a couple of years ago about a paedophile. The lead role was played by Kevin bacon. Hell of a performance: very sensitively done. I thought he was ever so brave as an actor to take such a role.

if you satisfy yourself with porn, you're still a sexual offender

is it the same?

Depends on if it's real children involved. These days there's a hell of a lot of very realistic looking porn art .....or so I hear:P

I believe you can opt for chemical castration, but it would probably have to be administered through a doctor. So you would have to tell them why you want such a round of drugs.

Its a compulsion, I don't know if a person can ever be truly "cured" of pedophilia. Other than opting out, or bein locked up, the only other way too keep yourself from givin into the impulse would probably be chemical castration.

It's not always a compulsion to 'act'. Any more than ordinary sexual desire is a compulsion to 'act'. Shouldn;t assume thatbecause someone gets turned on by children that they are less able to resist that desire than someone who is turned on by anything else.

...And that has also been labeled criminal child pornography in the eyes of the law. I would do a google search to cite an article backing up my claim, but I don't want the nice young men from the NSA to pay me a visit. :right:

The question, always, lies in harm. Homosexuality in and of itself is not harmful to the consenting adults (well, as long as enough lube is used, I suppose.) I can imagine -- with major mental contortions -- a society where a type pedophilia was not inherently harmful. We do not live in that society.

So, in this society, an active pedophile (like a rapist) is one that seeks to do harm to others. Therefore, they are criminal. If I had impulses like that, I would hope to seek some sort of therapy. Similar to how I would feel if I had impulses to randomly shoot people or torture small animals.

Looking at made-up pictures and cgi porn shouldn;t be illegal. IMO.

The problem is there have been a whole lot of studies showing that looking at porn does not satisfy the urge, but rather intensifies the desire for the real thing.

If I was a pedophile? a female one? does chemical castration work for girls? Well yeah, I know they are mostly male, but i don't even manage to predict beest's reaction to stuff and we've been married 15 years. How in the hell am i supposed to know how I'd think if i were a male attracted to children in a sexual way? frankly, I suspect i'd feel that it was normal and society was being unduly oppresive. So I'd keep quiet and do what i needed to do in secret and seek out others who felt the same way.

Wiki
And

I object someones lust for children and calling it a sexual orientation.

There are so many defense mechanisms which take the responsibility away from the perpetrator whatever the crime.

The news is full of it. Like that women drowning babies in the bathtub because she had postpartum blues. That man who said he turned his life around and god talked to him out of little boxes so he kept her captive in his back yard for twenty years.

I think it is more of a case of the primitive brain that cannot delay personal gratification.

but just because you object to it, doesn't mean it's not true.

I don't know that it is a sexual orientation--that just seems to be what most of the experts are now saying. It's a thing that just is--not something you choose.

Isn't it natural for animals to pick the youngest, strongest, fittest mate? Wouldn't that just make pedophilia an excessive extension of a natural urge?

/devil's advocate

noooooo mon e devil , and I don't have the brain power to take it to the discussion level. I just wanted to call BS. Or anyway that's my vote.

cloud
Truth is relative where a person's inner self is concerned.

If there is a 'victim' involved any reason given to alleviate the responsibility is just a defense mechanism.

i know that the TDCJ offers the orchiectomy procedure for free to it's inmates. or in some cases i've seen inmates get worked over because of their crimes. a guy i know beat the living shayt out of his cellie for looking at his daughters' picture wrong. the guard let the guy i know make it and didn't put him in lock up because he told the guard what happened and the guard said he had 2 daughters and probably would have done the same thing if in jasons' position.

back on subj. sometimes the orchiectomy doesn't take. this guy on parole had “in possession of cards featuring individuals having sex as well as images of exposed females.”

here's the story

personally i find it disgusting. i would have no problem going to prison if someone touched my son in an inappropriate manner.

Exactly plthijinx. It is because you can identify with the victim. You have empathy for the hurt and damage done to a child who has no power or worldly knowledge. Children are taught to obey adults and to have an adult betray that code is indefensible.


I had to burn out my thoughts on this by doing some reading on self control theories, criminology and the link between the two.

Finally after seeing the 'marshmallow' control test a half a dozen annoying times I find something short and concise that the 'experts' well agree on and so do I.

If there is a victim then it is a crime and not an orientation. It's about personal gratification and the person who can hurt another to provide their pleasure is a low - brow deviant.

crime as regards to low self-control:

A “here and now” orientation for those who are unwilling or unable to delay gratification.


Easy or simple gratification through crime requires no skill or perseverance.

Crime is exciting and appealing to those with low levels of self-control.

Crime has no long-term benefits, thus, is only appealing to those with low self-control.

Crime requires no skill or planning and is especially suited for those who are unable to make long-term investments in skill development.

Crime results in pain or discomfort for its victims, which fits with the correlation between low self-control and self-centeredness.


ok It's time for me to quit.:)

and i can't tell you how many people (errrr asswipes) i met who have not only low self control and self-centeredness but also a huge problem i saw that they have is low to extremely low self-esteem. whatever crime they were locked up for, it didn't matter. those three problems were very prominent. it's a very difficult problem to fix and in most cases, cannot. why? because they don't want to change mostly. maybe one out of a hundred.

Sky what you are talking about is acting on the impulse, not having the impulse. The impulse itself is ( I think) an unchosen orientation. Acting on it is a crime.

Okay, I have to ask, how can orchie "not take"?

Either you have your testicles removed or you don't. It's not like the doctor can miss one or something.

Chemical castration, usually through Depo-Provera administered either through shots or sub-dermal implant, does not work as advertised. Sure, it chemically neuters a guy but that in itself cannot suppress ingrained behaviour. All it can do is take out the sexual component of what in my opinion is essentially rape.

...and only with that particular appendage.

I wish more of them would choose option #5. I heard an NPR discussion on this topic yesterday and one of the guests stated they had one man who documented 35,000 cases of molestation that he was responsible for, he kept his own records. I don't have many nice words for these kinds of people.

I can only think of one - DIE!

I don't wish to ignore you so I'll just say it is not possible for me to respond to this with any kind of willingness to get to the meanings of what impulses can mean because we have lots of them and whether that constitutes any kind of orientation to anything I do not know. There are many problems with ethics and philosophizing just takes too much darn time.

impulses hum

On a lighter note.

I have impulses to eat lots of pastry. I do. I love donuts. I never met a donut I didn't love. I think that means I have an orientation to being a fatty. I try not to act on my natural inclinations more than every two weeks. :)

Replace impulse with compulsion.

Simply put: It's all about making choices. The RIGHT ones.
Everyone has impulses to to wrong things at times. There are different degrees of wrong, depending on multitudes of standards. Not being able to make the choice not to do these wrongs is, in my opinion, the definition of insanity. There are people who just can't make the right choice at a given time. I call them crazy motherfuckers.:crazy:

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that ignores laws that I deem stupid, AND I'm willing to take the risk of punishment.

Pedos do that too. These people don't feel it's wrong, they go by their own feelings of right and wrong. That's why law enforcement is critical in this instance.

Of course that's led to some stupid shit, like parents harassed for taking pictures of their kids naked in the kiddie pool. No matter how many laws they pass, parents are the ultimate protection for their kids.

it happens occasionally... Bruce has it nailed. I agree.

I think society generally accepts that most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, and generally prefer younger fitter specimens if given a choice, although females also are drawn to older more successful males. And this follows a biological urge to procreate and produce healthy offspring (young/fit) and to be able to protect them (success/wealth).

Most, but not all. Some like much older people. Some like unhealthy people. Some like people of the same sex. Some like people who are still children.

We probably all feel the same way about the type of people we are attracted to, until someone tells us it's wrong. The definition of wrong changes with time. (Think Turing)The main difference between pedophilia and all the other types of "wrong" are that the subjects of the lust are not old enough to give consent for sex. From the outside we all want pedophiles hung, drawn, castrated and quartered, but this questionis posed from the inside.. and from the inside I'd say the pedo feels pretty much like gays did way back when.....

True, dat.
Interesting angle: Most men who "we" consider normal, if they were completely honest want to have sex with younger women.If the legal age for consentual sex is 16, then lots of men would choose to sleep with a girl who is, say 16 years and 2 days old. I wonder if those same men would want to fuck a 15 year old if the legal age was changed to fifteen. Probably so.
We are all animals deep down. Most of us just have the ability to control our animal instincts. Some don't. Those individuals would be the pedophiles, or as afore mentioned, the crazy mofos.:eyebrow:
Personally, I have always been attracted to older women. But now that I'm in my mid fifties I seem to desire younger women. The older I get, the younger my fantasies wander. Perhaps that is a sign of waning sanity within itself. Something to ponder on....:eek:

I can bet capn that in your fantasy the 15 year old is developed sexually. There is no way I believe your fantasy girl looks anything like a child like 7 and and 9 year old.

To me any kind of attraction comes with a thought. In our fantasies I bet too that the object of our attraction is willing and responsive.

Young children are not willing or responsive or sexually mature. Does anyone want to do it with a child? and call it an orientation? The survival of the fittest? That does not mesh. Maybe pedo's are their own Darwin award candidates.

During the Victorian era, the legal age of consent for a girl was 12. There was a thriving industry of brothels catering to men who particularly wanted sex with young virgins: children in today's terms. Today those men would be considered paedophiles. Back then they were simply red-blooded men.

Context matters and is not a constant.

Sky: I understand your distaste for this subject. But it cannot in my mind be wrong to seek a greater understanding of these people.

France was even more sexually promiscuous. I know that context matters when it comes to complacency and complacency comes from social status in those eras. It depended upon your social circle and then like now a fall from a particular social circle was directly related to which sexual pursuit one partook in.(among other things of course)

I get the history of it. I think it would be better to understand the unwilling participant.

Well. I would posit that actually it would be most useful, societally speaking, to understand both. But in terms of attempting to tackle/prevent the problem of paedophilia, then understanding the perpetrators (what makes someone a paedophile/why they do what they do) might be most productive. By understanding the victim we can better help them cope after the fact. But if we want to reduce the number of paedophile victims, then really we need to understand the perpetrators.

Then again I see no conflict between the two. Why is it better to understand one and seek no understanding of the other? Seeking to understand the paedophile doesn't negate an ability to understand their victims.

Bullshit. If it were acceptable it wouldn't have been used as a terrorist tactic and punishment against foes. It was surely more common but it wasn't "acceptable."

Depends on if they were married or not.

Rape in marriage was only recognised in UK law in the mid 90s. Prior to that it was considered impossible for a husband to 'rape' his wife as she'd effectively given life-time consent to sex at any time that her husband wanted by dint of her saying yes at the altar.

Also, whilst rape was often used (and is still often used) as a form of intimidation in war, there was also a common attitude until very recently (and indeed some people still take this view) that when a woman says 'no' she means 'yes'. In fact, in courtship it was for a long time considered proper for the woman to protest and for the man to persuade forcibly. That showed that she was properly demure and he was properly manly.

. . . or that women were at fault in rape because they were somehow alluring. I think this is what some perps feel about kids, too--that they are seductive, and teasing the man.

More understanding of the causes and cures is certainly in order, because at this point, we are just going through trial and error. At least it's a problem that's being talked about and somewhat addressed now.

Don't....... Stop.
Don't.... Stop.
Don't.. Stop.
Don't stop.
Don'tstop.
Don'tstop.
Don'tstop.

Like that, Dana? ;)

it's a zipper!

Hi Cloud.

These are good questions and demonstrate greater than usual humanity toward this population. With expansion of human rights and equality to previously excluded groups, paedophilia has become a last resort for legitimate prejudice and scapegoating. Indeed, despising paedophiles allows a rare opportunity for ordinary people to assert their feelings of moral superiority and bolster their personal self image.

As somebody who is attracted to children --and who has been conscious of and self-conscious about these feelings since well before puberty, and who has NEVER committed any kind of sexual offence-- I can tell you it is difficult living with paedophilia, but also that much of the difficulty stems from unremitting social stigma and intolerance. I can also tell you that most paedophiles do not abuse children, and that much -probably most- child sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by non-paedophiles.

Anyway, you mentioned some options, so I'll comment on them...

-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator

This is the worst possible strategy, but unfortunately it is the one most paedophiles settle on. The reason for this is that most internalize the following syllogism:

1. paedophiles are bad
2. i am a paedophile
3. i am bad

Being intrinsically beyond redemption, a paedophile has no motive to analyze his situation, attitudes or behaviour, and no motive to seek help, support or advice. Instead he goes into a state of denial and keeps his feelings hidden, even from himself. This can be a recipe for disaster.

--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help


Paedophilia is a stable sexual orientation. Unfortunately the majority of therapists are poorly trained in this area. Information about paedophilia is heavily biased toward forensic and child protection agendas, and offers little comfort to paedophiles themselves. Therapists have become fixated on 'reparative' therapies, much as they did until very recently with homosexuality.

This failed duty of care reflects very poorly on clinical standards. These services must be free, informed and confidential, yet in many jurisdictions, therapists are mandated to report paedophile clients to authorities. Obviously this will guarantee that no sensible paedophile will ever seek voluntary help there.

As it happens, despite some very bad experiences, over the years I've found two separate therapists who have been a huge help to me. Both of these have been very kind and accepting, and have reassured me that my orientation is not a moral failing or a mental illness. Its hard to convey how healing this has been for me. It's paralyzing to experience one's nature as fundamentally at odds with one's own values of care and empathy, and even worse to feel deeply ashamed of it and compelled to keep it a secret. The negative psychological consequences of intense stigma have been well canvassed in discussions of homosexuality, and its no different for paedophiles.

For me, this therapy has been invaluable, but only because my therapists were sympathetic and supportive and never sought to pathologize or change my orientation. This isn't to suggest that they never sought to ensure my conduct remain within accepted social constraints. This objective was sometimes much on their minds, and that priority was accepted by me as relevant. I should also point out that I paid for all of this therapy myself, spending many thousands of dollars. For many minor attracted people, such self funding is simply not an option.

--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?

This option pretty much goes hand in hand with the first one -try to ignore it. They are the poles of a single complex and reinforce each other. A person ignores his situation, does nothing to process it in a conscious way, forces it into the subconcious realms of his instinctive behaviour, and then finds himself acting out in ways he maybe hoped he wouldn't. Unable to confront the reality of his actions, he pushes them further underground, strengthens his denial and the cycle continues. This is why self-acceptance is so fundamental to self management, and why stigma is so counter-productive.

--become a priest or a boy scout leader?

Believe it or not, this is a popular option, and one i think should be perfectly acceptable. Personally I'd prefer to hang out with Brownies than Boy Scouts, but so long as appropriate conduct is maintained with the children, i don't see the problem. I've often gone out of my way to spend time with kids, especially in the years since I've learned to feel less inhibited and ashamed of my orientation. I've had some really great friendships with them, and not a few remain close friends as adults, fully aware of my orientation.

--blow your head off because there's no hope?

I first sought therapy after a suicide attempt. Being male, this wasn't a 'cry for help', it was a serious attempt to end my life. It was only by pure luck that I survived. It gave me a big scare and utterly changed my attitude to my condition, leading to me where I am now. Things are still difficult for me sometimes, but the difficulties are mainly extrinsic, presented by society, rather than by a lot of emotional knots twisting up my insides.

cont...

cont. from above...

So, in conclusion...

I'll tell you about the strategies that have worked for me. To begin with, I've come to recognize that my orientation isn't simply a sexual attraction to children, its a generalized orientation, and has a strong nurturing component to it. It's instinctive in the way that motherhood is instinctive. Altho my sexual feelings are undeniable, they are far from central or demanding of attention or satisfaction.

I've also learned to be open with people about my feelings. I don't go shouting about it from the rooftops, but that's not because I'm ashamed, it's becos of the level of prejudice, intolerance, hostility and violence shown toward people like me by society. Its depressing that this level of bigotry is so acceptable to otherwise civilized people.

Despite this, I'm optimistic things will change for the better. Plenty of people who've engaged with me on this issue in the past few years have reappraised their initial prejudices and have come to show me their trust, kindness, respect and understanding, so i know it's possible. I have a sizable circle of friends and family who know about my orientation, and most are quite happy for me to spend time with their children.

I've fallen in love with children on two or three occasions. These haven't been trivial pseudo-experiences, they have been profound and involving personal journeys. It was grief over the absence of a beloved child that precipitated my suicide attempt. Grieving in silence and secrecy is very difficult. I've always felt a responsibility to shield children from the burden of these kinds of feelings, and I think this applies as much to parental love as to the romantic variety. I'm dedicated to the idea that it is the adult's duty to meet children's needs and not the other way around. I've also had children show me strong affection and emotional commitment. When a child shows love for an adult, there's a serious responsibility to safeguard that child's trust and not betray them in any way. That's my guiding ethos.

As for expressing my sexual feelings in private, well I don't collect child pornography, but i do have a lot of children's books in my shelves, and sometimes in the illustrations, careless little girls let their knickers show! I find it next to impossible not to think about children when I masturbate, but I don't think about masturbating at all when I'm with children. In my experience, children in fantasy are quite different to real life children, who have a way of focusing attention on their real needs. The more contact I have with real life children, the less inclined i am to confuse them with the fantastic variety.

This is part of a pattern: the more consciously I reflect on the situation I and others like me are in, and the more effort I put into educating those around me about our challenges and struggles, then the more honorable and worthwhile I feel. I feel less trapped and far, far less vulnerable to any impulsive or compulsive acting out.

I think society, especially that small element of it that has some capacity for rational insight, bears a heavy burden of responsibility to develop a more mature stance in it's attitudes to paedophilia, and also needs to confront some of its own anxieties around sexuality, and child sexuality in particular. I was eleven when my romantic interest in little girls first occasioned comment from adults. At the time it was no big deal, but by the time I was seventeen I'd grown to feel perverted, isolated and ashamed. Children are taught in school that sex is fraught with danger, that evil paedophiles lurk in every playground, but a sizable number of these children are going to grow into men who themselves experience some sexual attraction to children. These feelings are far more common than is generally acknowledged, and unless they are discussed and allowed some acceptable avenue for exploration and expression, they will cause misery for someone.

Of course children deserve protection from sexual abuse, but all too often this 'protection' is simply a cipher for social control of their sexuality and of sexuality in general. Children themselves are now being routinely subjected to accusations of sexual abuse of peers and are subsequently exposed to serious institutional abuse by the judicial system. As if sexual curiosity were a heinous crime.

In many historical contexts, paedophilic feelings in adults have been recognized as a source of authentic and selfless love and devotion that can play an important role in the education and nurturing of children. Unless society recognizes this capacity for good in adults who are attracted to children, those adults will seek alternative, and sometimes malignant ways to meet their emotional needs.

cheers
sean.

Wow... much to think about. Thanks.

No problem. Thanks for publishing.
:)

I'm having trouble digesting this, honestly, because it's so contrary to my preconceived notions I've had for over half a century. I'm going to have to reread it a couple of times, over a couple of days, and digest it.

You haven't changed my mind yet, but it's got me thinking.

My work is done!

Fascinating stuff, sean. Bloody brave too.

Thank you.

Oh I sincerely hope not :P Stick around, you might find the place interesting :)

Thanks DanaC. I'm definitely encouraged by the response so far.
:)

This is the first time I've had any first hand info from anyone on this topic. So prior to Sean's post(s), I must admit that my views were based totally on hearsay.

I was able to follow along with what you were saying, right up until this point:

Screeching halt. Standard party line of many abusive pedophiles is that what they are doing is not abuse if the child is willing. And I take issue with the assertion that "children" in the sense you mean are going through the judicial system--worst case scenario is teenagers being accused of statutory rape with their teenage girlfriends. You are not discussing teenagers, you are discussing little children. I think there may have been one story that I can recall in the last 10 years about a kindergartener who was suspended for kissing another kindergartener on the playground. That's hardly "insitutional abuse" by the "judicial system."

When you insert this topic in with the rest, your sincerity takes a big hit.