The research says that narrative humanization<\/em> (storytelling in a way that humanizes the subjects of the stories – that would be us) is the best route to go when reaching people. In other words, it is not arguing or facts that will convince people. Yes, I know, I am terrible at practicing that. I am a great example of how not<\/em> to interact with people we are trying to convince. I tend to talk to the few in the crowd that favor critical thinking, which in this day and age, is not<\/strong> the majority of people. We need people willing to tell their story (without sharing details which will out your real identity).<\/p>\n\n\n\n For more about narrative humanization, see<\/p>\n\n\n\n Challenging societal negativity towards paedophiles<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n For more on stigma, see:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stigma and non-offending pedophiles<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, let us talk about how this works practically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Having a presence on social media is entirely your choice. You should first be in a place where hearing hatred and trolling will not be triggering or upsetting to you, or be willing to block, ignore, or tune it out. Take care of yourself, and remember: The goal is to make sure MAPs can come forward to receive peer\/professional support, and the public relations spin is that this is to protect children. We are not in a place where we can go beyond that to talk about caring for MAPs for the sake of them being human beings – yet<\/strong>. We will get there, in time, but we need to do that one step at a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An article worth considering.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n That internally circulated piece did not seem to catch much attention or cause much in the way of change. So, last week, I finally put the finishing touches on another blog post<\/a>. This one was also about how we, as pedophiles, could be more effective in how we reach people, based in part on three different documents around sexual violence prevention advocacy work. I did my best to synthesize the information from those three reports into one blog post. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, it did not seem to carry any weight at all, either in the responses or in anyone’s behavior. That precipitated the frustration I pointedly expressed in a private group chat, which then became public one night (the 15th) when I reached the utter end of my patience, both because I partially do not know how to communicate all of this except in a lengthy blog post, and because it feels like people are throwing me under the bus for actually caring about the impact we are having on achieving our goals. Gasp. The horror.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ender Wiggin, bless his soul, set much of the ground work for social media advocacy. Some of us have followed his method of arguing with people (like me). Some of us have tried a more individual approach. Some of us try our best not to argue, but find common ground. Overall, we have done the former: Arguing as he used to. I have done the same, and I own that right along with everyone else in our community. But the simple reality is this: Most people are not good with critical thinking, and their skill at argumentation sucks so badly that Todd Nickerson created a Bingo game out of them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The simple reality is, how we are doing things is the very definition of insanity: Trying the same approach and expecting different results. Arguing does not work well, neither does nitpicking definitions. We take one step forward, get swarmed by the internet, and then take a few steps back. What we are all doing is not working well to see the kind of progress we would like. We all own that, and we all need to address it. While there are things we are doing well, how we argue and how we communicate needs to improve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have repeatedly heard criticisms about our approach. I might publicly respond (or not) by indicating skepticism about how valid the criticism is (at least a few I am about to list are not valid, but do think they need to be heard). I still listen to the criticisms I hear from others and I ask myself each and every time if people have a point that requires consideration. The resounding answer is yes, they do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a small sample of what has stuck with me over time, regardless of how valid I think it is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those are just seven criticisms I can recite offhand. I have heard many others: Abrasiveness, rudeness, failure to respect boundaries (remember Survivor Culture?), being too flippant, being creepy, etc. I am sure each of us has received a criticism and wondered if the person has a point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We also have two types of communication that are ruining our ability to effectively change anyone’s minds as long as we use social media as our primary platform of getting our points across. This is not because they are flawed, but because we constantly mix the two both in public and in private, and the end result is that we communicate ineffectively. Those two types of communication are private<\/strong>, internal<\/em> dialogue (such as the type we express around other MAPs and allies), and public<\/em><\/strong> dialogue (when we are talking to others who engage us in conversation). <\/p>\n\n\n\n These two should not overlap to the degree they currently do, because it is to confusing people who might otherwise understand or even publicly agree with what we would like to see once they do fully understand it. Not only does it confuse others, it can also confuse allies, and shut people off to listening. You mention the word pedophilia, and people are already reacting emotionally, then you add the words “not a disorder” and “sexuality” and it is no wonder no one takes us seriously. Someone else’s worldview is a fragile thing and cannot be challenged lightly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sexual violence preventionists often talk about reframing sexual violence. Why is this? Because through time, Western culture has gradually made the bulk of society see the issue of sexual violence through a certain lens or perspective (called a frame). The issue is not the picture<\/em> of what is happening – that never changes – the issue is how people see the picture through their perspective. Most see sexual violence as an issue of individuals who are sexual deviants (perverts, pedophiles, freaks, monsters, you get the idea) who are predisposed to harming people sexually (and can never change). They have an uncontrollable urge, and they will inevitably give in to that urge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The reason prevention advocates – the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the Coalitions Against Sexual Assault in most US states, the Association for the Treatment of Child Sexual Abusers and so on – talk about reframing sexual violence is because we cannot simply spout facts at people and expect them to listen. It simply does not work well. We cannot walk back a society-wide lens of viewing an issue a certain way by spouting facts. Nobody cares about the facts. We can use facts strategically to address a particular perspective and tweak it slightly, but we cannot be comprehensive (all the facts\/nuances) and strategic at the same time. This means we need a strategy for shifting the lens through which we are viewed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Our goal, if we want to be effective at humanizing pedophiles, is to shift the lens through which people see pedophiles and pedophilia. That includes using language they will listen to and understand. They currently see those issues through the lens of people who sexually abuse children, and likely always will. We cannot change that with all of the facts regurgitated every time someone is wrong on the internet (yes, again, I am guilty of this). That is simply not going to work. We need to be strategic in how we share our facts, and gently direct conversations towards shifting the lens through which people see pedophiles. This document<\/a> has many specific examples of how we can accomplish that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I am afraid I do not, sitting here, writing this blog post, have many specific examples of a conversation redirect that is helpful vs. inflammatory. One came up the other day when someone tweeted that pedophiles need help to not offend – I agreed with it, publicly, and asked people not to argue much:<\/p>\n\n\n\nAnd Another Blog Post<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
We All Of Us Own This<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/aboutpedophiliahome.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/02\/anti-bingo.png?w=856\")
<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nMy Criticisms<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Not The Picture, The Frame<\/h3>\n\n\n\n