| 1) |
There is a psychological theory called R.E.T. theory, developed by Albert
Ellis, which has as its core tenet the idea that it is possible for a human
being to
control the way he [or she, either gender may be assumed whenever the pronoun
"he" appears unless otherwise specified] feels by controlling the
way he thinks. [and...] |
| 2) |
R.E.T. theory has been demonstrated to work in practice. [and...] |
| 3) |
There is a psychological theory involving the effects of traumatic
circumstances
upon the human brain (and this theory may be termed "trauma theory") which has
as its core tenet the idea that certain experiences generate emotions that are
de jure "unmanageable" (i.e.: uncontrollable) [and...] |
| 4) |
Trauma theory has been demonstrated to work in practice.
[therefore...] |
| 5) |
Since R.E.T. theory postulates that ALL emotions CAN be managed, but trauma
theory postulates that SOME CANNOT, and both theories have been demonstrated
to work in practice [it may be logically inferred that...] |
| 6) |
One of the following must be true:
| a. |
Each theory is correct within its own limited domain, and the
respective
domains occupied by the two theories do not overlap, |
| b. |
Neither theory is entirely correct; both represent parts of a
larger, as yet undiscovered system that incorporates and
synthesizes both, or |
| c. |
One theory, either R.E.T. or trauma theory, represents a limited case
variation or subset of the other theory. [and...] |
|
| 7) |
Through examination of empirical evidence (too extensive to be
listed here) it may be reasoned that 5c, above, is correct: Trauma
theory is a limited case variation or subset of R.E.T. theory. [more specifically...] |
| 8) |
Trauma is what results when an individual cannot apply some form
of R.E.T.
to
a given situation (although the R.E.T. so applied may not be formally-taught,
"classroom style" R.E.T., as it is the effect that is important). [therefore...] |
| 9) |
Trauma theory is inapplicable (trauma will not occur) in cases
where a human
has had the opportunity to apply some form of R.E.T. or "pseudo-R.E.T." (i.e.:
a
self-taught, rather than a formally-taught, R.E.T. style process of rethinking
the situation) to a given circumstance. [and...] |
| 10) |
The process of applying some form of R.E.T. or pseudo-R.E.T. to an
experience to
avoid traumatic effects may be termed "integration," and the techniques so
used
may be termed "integrative techniques." [and...] |
| 11) |
It may be logically inferred through application of empirical
evidence (too extensive to list here) that the process of integration
is the process of incorporation of an experience into one's frame of
reference; where one has
"built" a frame of reference sufficient to integrate an experience, one will
not suffer trauma as a result of that experience. [and...] |
| 12) |
The process of integration may be used by children as well as by
adults; a
child may incorporate an experience without trauma, or may not do so,
depending
upon whether or not the child possesses a frame of reference sufficient to
integrate the experience. [however...] |
| 13) |
The process of integration involves an individual's frame of
reference of the
moment (not some universal "meta" frame of reference); two persons may
integrate
the same experience using different frames of reference. [and...] |
| 14) |
The frame of reference used by a child to integrate a given
experience may not be the frame of reference an adult would use to
integrate the same experience. [however...] |
| 15) |
Since the purpose of integration is to avoid trauma, the exact
frame of reference used to integrate an experience is irrelevant: the
result is the same, and the result is what is important.
[and...] |
| 16) |
It may be logically inferred that the process of integration is
reversible: if the frame of reference a given person uses to integrate
a given experience is
later challenged and collapses, integration is disrupted and may be reversed,
and that person may experience trauma at that point. [therefore...] |
| 17) |
Since children use unique frames of reference to integrate
experiences, a challenge
to the frame of reference a given child has used to integrate a given
experience
may cause that child to experience trauma. [therefore...] |
| 18) |
It may be reasoned that: IF A FRAME OF REFERENCE CAN BE FOUND
THROUGH WHICH A
CHILD MAY INTEGRATE A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WITH AN ADULT, THEN THAT CHILD WILL
NOT SUFFER TRAUMA AS A RESULT OF THAT EXPERIENCE. [however...] |
| 19) |
IF THE FRAME OF REFERENCE USED BY A CHILD TO INTEGRATE A SEXUAL
EXPERIENCE WITH AN ADULT IS LATER CHALLENGED AND COLLAPSES, THEN THAT
CHILD WILL EXPERIENCE
TRAUMA. [and...] |
| 20) |
Children understand the difference between physical pleasure and
physical pain,
except in the rare cases wherein a child is born incapable of feeling pain.
[and. . . ] |
| 21) |
Children seek pleasure and avoid pain, given a free opportunity to
do so.
[furthermore...] |
| 22) |
Children understand the differences among: emotional pleasure, as
from joy, humor, and happiness (which may be termed "positive
emotion"), emotional pain, as from terror, rage, and grief (which may
be termed "negative
emotion"), and emotional experiences that are neither painful nor pleasurable,
as from acceptance, willingness, and curiosity (which may be termed
"emotionally neutral"). [and, as a result...] |
| 23) |
Children will seek experiences that produce positive emotion in
preference
both to those. that produce negative emotion and to those that are emotionally
neutral, and also will seek emotionally neutral experiences in preference
to those that produce negative emotion, given a free opportunity to do so. [furthermore...] |
| 24) |
Children understand the meanings of the words "yes" and no."
[and, as a result...] |
| 25) |
Children will, assuming only that they have the vocabulary to do
so,
voluntarily use the terms "yes" and "no" given the free opportunity to do so. [furthermore...] |
| 26) |
Children understand the difference between circumstances in which there
will
be no consequence, or an insignificant consequence, as a result of giving a
particular response to a yes/no question (which may be termed" independent
circumstances"), and circumstances in which there will be a significant
consequence to giving a particular response to a yes/no question (which may be
termed "dependent circumstances") [and therefore...] |
| 27) |
Children will, assuming only that they have the vocabulary to do
so, answer yes/no questions accurately and truthfully under
independent circumstances. [furthermore...] |
| 28) |
Children understand the difference between the ABILITY to make
decisions (which in political science is called power) and the RIGHT
to make or
PRIVILEGE of making decisions (which in political science is called
authority).
[furthermore...] |
| 29) |
Children understand that authority may be used to limit itself,
and thus to
check concurrent power, through the application of alterations to the frame
of reference through which authority is applied (and these alterations may be
termed "meta-rules") [furthermore...] |
| 30) |
Meta-rules may be applied to strip an authority-wielder's
authority (and thus check his power) to apply consequences within the
context of a given frame of reference. [and...] |
| 31) |
A circumstance in which an authority wielder cannot apply
consequences is an
independent circumstance. [and...] |
| 32) |
Since children will answer yes/no questions accurately and
truthfully under
independent circumstances [it can therefore be reasoned that...] |
| 33) |
In a circumstance in which an adult has mitigated his power and
authority
through application of a meta-rule, a child's answers to questions involving
physical pain/pleasure and emotionally positive/neutral/negative experiences
must be regarded as accurate and truthful. [therefore ...] |
| 34) |
Under such circumstances, circumstances in which a child is free
to report his pain/pleasure and comfort/discomfort accurately and
truthfully, if that child reports that a given experience is
pleasurable and comfortable, and
reports
a desire that that experience be repeated, the child's report is EQUAL TO AND
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A STATEMENT OF CONSENT WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE
IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN. [and...] |
| 35) |
Empirical evidence (to extensive to be listed here) leads to the
logical inference that children have no pre-conceptions about sexual experience
(i.e.: children have no instinctive aversion to sexual activity) that would
tend to alter the conclusion given in 33, above. [and, therefore...] |
| 36) |
It must be believed that if a child reports that a given SEXUAL
experience
is pleasurable and comfortable, reports a desire that that experience be
repeated, the child's report is EQUAL TO AND INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A
STATEMENT
OF CONSENT TO THAT SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IN WHICH
IT IS GIVEN. [thus...] |
| 37) |
When frame of reference is considered, it is logical to conclude
that children
CAN, and possibly DO, consent to sexual activity with adults, within frames of
reference that can serve to abrogate adults' power/authority, specifically:
| a. |
friendship situations, in which friendship is the frame of
reference, |
| b. |
gaming situations, in which the rules of the game are the
frame of reference, |
| c. |
Socratic situations, in which free questioning without
reservation is the
frame of reference, and, |
| d. |
make believe situations, in which a play is the frame of
reference,
as well as in any other frames of reference that can likewise serve to
mitigate
power/authority. [and...] |
|
| 38) |
Without the mitigating effect of frame of reference based
integration, any or
all of the following effects may cause stress (trauma) in children involved
in sexual activity with adults:
| a. |
physiological effects resulting from arousal and subsequent detumescence, |
| b. |
the Westermark effect, |
| c. |
the effect of peer pressure, |
| d. |
the effect of maturation pressure, |
| e. |
the effect of gender preference identification conflict, and |
| f. |
genitalization of the sexual experience, as well as |
| g. |
other effects not mentioned here. [however...] |
|
| 39) |
When integrative techniques are applied through an appropriate
frame of reference, the effects of the stressors listed in 37, above,
will be
mitigated or eliminated, either by eliminating the cause from the child's
frame of reference entirely, or by enabling the adult to teach the child
skills used to cope with the effect. [and...] |
| 40) |
As a child matures, and his frame of reference changes,
integrative techniques
can be applied to continue to mitigate or eliminate potentially traumatic
stressors associated with sexual activity, including prior sexual activity
with an adult. [indeed...] |
| 41) |
It may be logically inferred that this process (1 - 37, above)
represents the method through which children learn to integrate all
potentially traumatic
experiences, indeed ALL experiences: that which is integrated into a child's
frame of reference is acceptable, that which is not integrated is not
acceptable. [furthermore...] |
| 42) |
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response to trauma.
[and...] |
| 43) |
Stockholm syndrome can be used to manipulate an individual to
become
psychologically dependent upon a person who has harmed him. [and...] |
| 44) |
As stated at 18, above, trauma previously mitigated or eliminated
through
integration in a child who has had a sexual experience with an adult may
subsequently resurface if the frame of reference used by that child to
integrate that experience is challenged and collapses. [it logically follows
that...] |
| 45) |
A child who has integrated a sexual experience with an adult, but
later has
the frame of reference he used to integrate that experience challenged to
the point that it collapses, WILL EXPERIENCE TRAUMA AT THE POINT AT WHICH
HIS FRAME OF REFERENCE COLLAPSES, EVEN IF HE HAD EXPERIENCED NO TRAUMA PRIOR
TO THAT POINT. [and...] |
| 46) |
Trauma so experienced by that child may result in a subsequent
Stockholm
syndrome-like dependence upon the person who caused the trauma, i.e.: UPON
THE PERSON WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHALLENGING THE CHILD'S FRAME OF REFERENCE.
[and...] |
| 47) |
This sudden surfacing of trauma, coupled with the sudden
dependence upon the person challenging the child's frame of reference,
may be interpreted by an observer as caused by the original sexual
experience, when in fact its primary (immediate) cause is the
outsider-induced collapse of the child's frame of reference.
[and...] |
| 48) |
This process may be interpreted by an outside observer as a
"recovery," when,
in fact, had the situation been left well enough alone, there would have been,
as it were, nothing to recover from. [thus...] |
| 49) |
The process of "treating" children who have has sexual experiences
with adults may, and often does, CAUSE the trauma it attempts to
treat. [and since...] |
| 50) |
There is an effect called the observer effect or "Hawthorne
effect" that makes it extremely difficult for a "neutral" interactant
in a relationship to NOT
subconsciously influence the individual with whom he interacts. [and so...] |
| 51) |
Collapse of a child's reference frame, and subsequent trauma,
invoked during "treatment" of the child following sexual interaction
with an adult, may
occur because of the influence of the observer effect, even in circumstances
in which the adult performing the "treatment attempts to remain "neutral." [and, therefore...] |
| 52) |
Most, if not all, of the trauma inflicted upon children as a
result of sexual
interaction with adults is actually inflicted AT THE POINT WHERE THE CHILD'S
FRAME OF REFERENCE COLLAPSES following a challenge by a well-meaning but
nevertheless harmful latecomer. [and...] |
| 53) |
It may thus be reasoned that most, if not all of the problems
"caused by
pedophiles" in our society are actually not the result of pedophilia or of
interaction with pedophiles, which children can integrate, but rather the
result of society's failure to universally teach integrative 'techniques to
children within each child's appropriate frame of reference. [and...] |
| 54) |
Pedophilia appears to be at least partially genetic or otherwise
non- psychological in origin. [which means...] |
| 55) |
Even if every pedophile in the world were killed today, more would
be created
within a generation. [thus...] |
| 56) |
It is illogical and stupid to continue to treat pedophiles, and
the interactions of pedophiles with children, the way our society
currently treats them, since
the current treatment is traumatic to the involved children, while at the same
time vilifying, and ultimately destroying, millions of pedophiles WHO CANNOT
HELP WHAT THEY ARE (although some may learn to control their behavior). |
