Messages By: allyyyyys

I have sent a message to Dr. Phil on the subject of the accusations against a father molesting his child, but I'm new to this board and wasn't sure if my comments were in the `discussion' portion so I'll say them again here:

 

It doesn't do any good to rush into quick analysis and judgement..  Doing so only causes one to miss important points that sometimes prove the opposit eof what one thinks initially.  The question is asked `Was this child coached?"  The very fact that the question was asked leads us to a consideration of an aspect of this tragic matter that may not be relevent and cause us not to listen to what the child is saying or (worse) HOW she is expressing herself.

 

There are words that belong with children such as `hurted' (instead of hurt) and `feeled' instead of felt or touched.  In this case the child screams over and over "My Daddy touched my pee-pee!"  I want to ask the reader, as well as Dr. Phil,---WOULD a child of 3 say the word `touched'--as she is screaming hysterically?  if he only touched her, wouldn't she be more likely to say "My Daddy feeled me and I don't like it!"---without the screams?  or would she be more likely to say "My Daddy HURT my pee-pee!" and scream bloody blue murder?  

 

The difference you see is the difference between an ADULT'S use of words and a child's.  I want to ask you to consider---whether a child of three, who is USED to having her father change her diaper (and presumably having to touch her in the process of clean-up, if necessary)--would even consider the rightness or wrongness of a simple touch?  --or even the kiss?  They do not have the sense of morality an adult has.  I know that on one occasion one of my own children approached me--crying--asking me to "kiss it Mummy, kiss it!    "--as they held their genital area.  The child  had fallen astride a fence and wanted Mummy to "kiss it better" as they always believed I could.  Hadn't I ALWAYS kissed every hurt and tear away. no matter what?   The request was completely innocent;  without guile, without cunning.   Was this any different?  How can we be sure?

 

You see, there is more to the awareness of the child's use of words than one might think.  If she was NOT coached into any concept of badness, or wrongness she would not see anything wrong in the touch OR the kiss,  and she would not be crying at all--unless she was severely hurt--and then she would say so.  She would use the word hurt as in  "My Daddy HURT my pee-pee.  But If she was coached she would be more likely to use the adult's word `touched'  that had been given to her in the process of coaching---and each and every time she arrived home with the innocuous "Did Daddy touch you again...Mmnn?  Did he?  Well, you're with Mummy now!  MnnHmmn !  You're safe, now!"  He can't touch you now!"

. 

I think she was most definitely coached.

 

I think she was coached because the hysterics only started as she ARRIVED home.  Being alone with Daddy all the way home didn't seem to get the tears going, somehow.

 

We could say `But what about this Daddy'--what's with him?    Well, talk about Mummy first. 

 

What's with a Mummy who thinks her child is being molested--but lets her husband take the kid into a LOCKED bathroom.  Why locked?  Any parent knows that little kids get changed almost anywhere:  on the floor of the living room, with a blanket under her, on the mother's bed with a waterproof pad for safety--anywhere!    What's with the locked bathroom--and why wasn't the kid screaming THEN?    The only concern then was  "Where's the diaper?  Why are you in there without a diaper?"  No screams, it seems.

 

Who is `the frogman'?  Is he like `THE bogyman' (as in `The bogyman'll get ya!") ?  Who said it?

Whose saying what, and why to this child?

 

But the Dad.  Why can't he answer a straight question with a straight answer?  He said he did the most marujana when he became the father of this little girl.  That he was the `most nervous' then.  Why?  Because he knew he was attracted to young girls?   Because the child represented a danger zone he wanted to avoid?   People are commenting that the father `doesn't seem right', somehow.  He doesn't.   Is this child the victim of molestation?  Is it all a ruse to get an the father out of the picture?  It seems as though it's a little of each, to me.  Things are never completely black and white,  but when the truth lies somewhere in between,  it's very hard to find. 

 

Maybe it's a little of each:  perhaps in that  `grey area' that lies between all black and all white there's a place that says all of it is true.  Could it be that the torn labia, the redness, the locked bathroom door--caused the mothers to intuit what they were afraid to say themselves?  Could it be true, but they needed the child to SAY IT before anyone would believe them?  Could it be they felt they NEEDED to coach the child because of what they felt to be `in the interest' of the child--and in the process did more damage than anyone TO the child?   Is the father guilty--or merely inarticulate? 

 

Go slowly.  Such charges can devastate innocent lives or cause the guilty to slip silently away.  If either happens it will be a bigger tragedy than it already is.

 

 

Dr. Phil, I am deeply concerned about this growing problem. The city where I live (in Canada) is the place where police effected a wonderful and fabulously successful sting against pederasts operating 2,000 away over the internet. The existence of the internet---tho' indescribably essential now for use in business and every kind of research, is a travesty in terms of the ability it provides pederasts contact of children.
I am at home all day--retired. Last week, in the middle of the day, I tuned into a television station I had never watched before. It was Station 31 (in Canada) called SHOW. The program had just begun--& I feel I must tell you what I saw. It was a police `track the criminal' sort of show: the police were engaged in trying to find a 9 year old girl who had been lured away from her home by an on-line pederast. The police learned the criminals username--it was `SpankDaddy'. In plotting their strategy for trapping this person it was decided that what was needed was (novel twist in such a story!)--a mature, sophisticated WOMAN: a person who would not pretend to BE a child, but would openly admit (to the pederast) that she was `bored with her husband...he "didn't do it" for her any more... She asked --slowly and sensuously to be introduced to a child. The camera moved slowly in to focus on her eyes as she spoke. "I want to make love to a child", she said. A chill went down my spine. THIS is what television has come down to. Dr. Phil--the woman was acting the PART of a police woman--tracking a criminal. BUT, within the role, she was acting another role--that of a woman WANTING a child. BUT OVERLAPPING THIS, the actress was (to my mind) doing something else entirely: it seemed to me that she was well past the mere job of acting a part. THE SHOW ITSELF was deliberately tittilating: it was selling the very porn it purported to `condemn' (if one can make that accusation of a show at all!) It was devious beyond belief. As the camera went closer on the eyes of the actress--her eyes became almost `smokey' with desire. Her face was filled with such a level of lust no-one could possibly accept what she was doing as mere acting. She FELT what she was saying as she murmured "...yes--a girl--about 9 or 10. I want to experience it. Ive thought about it for a long time...take me to a dark place. A very dark pace. I long to feel the body of a child--to make her come..." It went on and on. Well, the meeting was arranged. The price was fixed. The place was agreed upon. The man was caught and the child was `found'--by the woman `police officer' who took the child in her arms, saying ""It's all right now--don't be scared--I've got you"--he ace suffused with passion I was unable to believe was acting. Dr. Phil, the show itself was presented in the manner of a successful `sting', but the show itself had a dual purpose: it served to tittilate, to disturb, to engage the viewer in the same way adult porn is intended to. And it accomplished all this while being presented as `afternoon entertainment'.
It has to stop, Dr.Phil. The more such `shows' are allowed to be viewed, the more they will be regarded as`...nothing shocking--just the usual thing', until pederasty itself becomes `normalized' in the minds of the public. I could not get the thought out of my mind --the wondering--what kind of feeelings such a show would be stirred up in the mind of a lonely, unemployed male--sitting at home, alone--watching this kind of `entertainment'. Only a year or so ago a man ran out of his home in Toronto--grabbed the first young woman he saw, pulled her into his home and raped and murdered her. He later admitted to the police that he had been watching the kind of `show' I have just described every day for weeks. He said he was "unable to control the pressure such shows created". Dr. Phil, the problem of illicit sex with children is now a world-wide problem. Please will you work to bring attention to the role televised porn plays in this growing problem.
Sincerely,
wait&C
moran68@shaw.ca