From: Louise <>                                  ---->

To: donna laframboise <>

Subject: Fw: Annotated quotes, part 2

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:33:00 -0400


Send #2...


----- Original Message -----

From: Louise <> 

To: Walter H. Schneider <> 

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 9:30 AM

Subject: Annotated quotes, part 2

[As seen above, this email about Ms. Malenfant sharing space on his website was forwarded to the reporter. Originally, Mr. Schneider's attack on my book grew out of my having opposed his anti-gay hatred promoted on the Internet. I do not believe Ms. Malenfant herself was at all anti-homosexual. (And I certainly knew that the reporter was not.) But Ms. Malenfant was a consummate opportunist, taking any chance to promote herself, hence unfazed by his views.--FC]

Hi Walter,


I must say you did a very nice job putting the annotated quotes on your

website.  It inspired me to finish the job:)                      [Back]


Re: I just can't say anything about paragraph 3, pg 112 it is just entirely

indefensible, so you check it out.  I've changed my mind, and here are my

comments on this paragraph:


Here is how Ferrel treats the problem of child porn, in paragraph 3:


"Finally, what about that special category of pornography that has caused so

much alarm in recent years, that which itself portrays children?  This is

another topic that needs far more treatment than can be given here, but a

few things can be said."


Since this is the most serious objection anyone has to pornography, that

being the production of child porn, it would seem to me that more than a

paragraph should be devoted to the subject in a book that purports to

legitimize porn.


"Once more, there is no evidence that such materials cause a sexual interest

in children, any more than seeing homosexual pornography produces a

homosexual orientation." 


I beg to differ, for the evidence in the literature is clear that exposure

to sexual themes and materials do initiate a child into sexual awareness.

An adult viewing homosexual porn is different from a young child immature in

thought and the ability to protect themselves.  They need our protection

from views exactly like these.  Anyone who says that sexual abuse of a child

is not harmful is deluding themselves.


"As for those who already are sexually aroused by children, for reasons that

have already been discussed, banning it does not prevent them from being so



Christensen seems to say here that society should not even try to limit the

sexual behaviour of pedophiles, since banning their porn isn't going to



Even something as innocuous as the little girl in the old Coppertone ads has

been reported by numerous pedophiles to be highly sexually stimulating.

Note also that in most of the world throughout history, children have gone

naked until the age at which they begin to internalize their culture's

taboos.  This is often the case in modern Europe, where complete nudity for

swimming is common for all ages. 


We know that pedophiles tend to gravitate toward places where children will

be uninhibited and unprotected, like schools, parks and beaches, but Ferrel

certainly doesn't alleviate any of our concerns with this statement.  If

anything, he reminds us that pedophiles don't wear signs on their foreheads,

and we must remain vigilant to the threats that face our children.


"Moreover, even the possibility that overtly sexual depictions of children

elicit child molestation is somewhat disconfirmed by the fact that no

increase in police reports of such acts occurred in Denmark during the years

there when child pornography was legal and widespread."


This seems to be rather skimpy evidence to base such a serious conclusion

on.  If child porn was so rampant in Denmark, perhaps the sexual acts

children experienced were not necessarily reported to police.  Though

Christensen provides a footnote for his Denmark info, he does not provide

the volume of the journal the alleged article can be found in, rather sloppy

for an academic, and perhaps purposely so.


Hard to believe that all of these comments were contained in one paragraph

of Ferrel's book.


"It is just as wrong to censor portrayals of alternative sexual lifestyles

as it is to suppress those of different political or religious systems.  In

all likelihood, given the large range of human differences that exits, the

best system in the present regrd is a pluralistic one that allows

individuals to discover the different modes of living that maximize their

fullfillment (pg 100)."


In other words, if it feels good do it .


"Should we nonetheless try to keep young people from acting on those desires

by preventing positive messages about sex from reaching them?  Absolutely

not.  The sexual ignorance and guilt traditionally imposed on adolescents

are harmful in countless ways (pg 100)."


Again, Christensen seems to be unable to recognize any harmful effects

arising from early sexualization, but denounces the methods used to slow

down the sexual awakening as cruel and unusual punishment for the young.  It

appears that he has done no research at all on the impact of early childhood

sexual experience.


"The only moral wrong involved in teenage sex, or any other kind, lies in

taking an appreciable chance in bringing harm to another - not in sexual

activity per se, nor in the desire that leads to it (101)."


According to Christensen, sex at any age is a good thing, and there are no

harmful effects, in his view.


"For whatever it is worth, the majority of investigators evidently believe

that exposure to media aggression produces long term and short term

tendencies toward the real thing(pg 141)"


This statement in Chapter 11 seems to be a direct argument disputing the

thesis of the book, that porn does not cause sexual deviance. 


Those who commit coercive or brutal sex crimes evidently fall into various

categories with different types of motivation, but clinicians who work with

them and social scientists who interview them have repeatedly reported the

following fact: among a certain percentage of these persons, a background of

sexual repressiveness appears to be a significant factor in producing their

violent behaviour (pg 148).


Christensen blames the existence of violent sexual predators on sexual

repression in childhood, a rather explosive remark to make, given that he

provides no citation to support this claim.  Even a cursory glance at the

professional literature on this issue, not to mention common sense, tells us

that violence begets violence, and a child initiated into sex to early in

life will often have sexual problems in adulthood.  Though repression causes

problems of its own, violent sexual offenders will frequently have violence

and sexual interference as part of their childhood histories as the primary

cause of their needs.  Christensen really needs to use a little academic

support of his outrageous position, but we are to accept his word for it.


"This would be especially true in cases where sex has been associated with

physical or emotional violence by parents who severely punish their

children's expressions of eroticism (148)."


Well, on the bright side, Christensen concedes that violent criminals

usually have violence in their childhood, but for reasons that can not be

fathomed, he believes that this violence is associated with childhood sex.

Many victims will say that alcohol is the biggest cause of beatings, but

Christensen ties the problem to childhood sexual repression, without a

single reference to back himself up.

This bizarre logic then takes another turn when he writes in the same



"In a similar vein, it has been found that many especially violent rapists

were themselves sexually assaulted when young.  The cycle continues, but how

did it get started?"


In other words, "Oh woe is us", is it being sexually assaulted in childhood

or being beaten for sexual repression that causes violent adult predators?

While Christensen tries to raise doubt on the answer to that question, his

effort is a dismal failure, since we know by evidence, instinct and common

sense that adult violent sexual predators almost always were themselves

assaulted in similar fashion as children.  I have to ask why Christensen

perpetually down plays the impact of childhood sexual interference

throughout his book, but never more so than here.


"And something that is true of male pedophiles in general - the majority of

whom are passive, nonviolent individuals - is that they feel threatened by

women.  This suggests that their sexual interests are turned toward children

precisely because of anxiety over rejecting and hostility.  In other words,

what makes children sexually preferable to such persons is that they are

accepting and unthreatening.  The extent to which this culture's negative

attitudes toward sexuality in general, and male sexuality in particular,

might play a part in this has not been adequately explored by psychologists

(pgs 151-152)."


It is hard to know where to start with this incredible statement, but here

is an effort.  First, Christensen makes a blanket statement that "the

majority" of male pedophiles are passive, nonviolent individuals, with

nothing to back it up.  He then blames the rejection of women as the cause

of pedophillac tendencies, rather than what the evidence shows, that sexual

interference in childhood frequently causes pedophillia in adulthood.   He

then blames pedophillia on this "culture's negative attitudes toward

sexuality", suggesting that pedophiles, en masse we assume, are attracted to

children because they are accepting and unthreatening, unlike women.


This theory for the genesis of pedophiles ignores the most common pattern we

have found in the life cycles of confessed pedophiles: most were sexually

interfered with at a young age, and re-enact their trauma in adulthood as a

result of that interference.  Since this would destroy Christensen's theory

that child sexual interference causes no harm, he posits this absurd theory

of pedophile causation and blames society's sexual repression for creating

this sexual preference.  Pedophiles create pedophiles, Mr. Christensen, the

way it always has been and will always be.  It is the primary reason why we

should protect children from sexual interference for as long as possible.


"The teenage son of a childhood friend of the author was driven to suicide

by guilt, guilt produced by his religion's telling him he was sinful and

unworthy if he could not stop masturbating and having sexual thoughts.  The

conclusion that sexual guilt is at fault in some violent sex crimes is

difficult to escape; it is virtually written on the face of certain cases

(pg 152)."


Once again, Mr. Christensen assumes that we should reform sexual values on

the basis of his personal experience.  It is certainly hard to believe that

a teenaged boy would leave a suicide note talking about masturbation and

church, but Mr. Christensen seems quite certain that he knows why the boy

took his own life.  Let's just hope he did not run this theory by his

childhood friend at the time of their great loss.  Now, based on this

alleged suicide, Christensen now believes he has provided indisputable proof

that sexual guilt is involved in violent sex crimes, "virtually written on

the face of certain cases."  Too bad he has so little respect for the reader

that he provides no cases, nor any other evidence, to support this argument.


I don't think I have ever been happier to reach the end of a book, but one

more Christensen conclusion bears review.  On the last page, 165, Mr.

Christensen provides us with the solution to all of humanity's sexual

problems when he writes:


"...pornography by itself is not the basic issue.  Opposition to it is only

a symptom of more general attitudes toward sexuality that are both false and

harmful to us all.  But sane and humane attitudes about that subject can

never be cultivated as long as harmless sexual fantasies are despised by the

general public and suppressed by the power of the state.  Indeed, the

current campaign against pornography is also harming sex education and the

rights of sexual minorities; in the long run, it is a threat to the privacy,

liberty, and dignity of everyone."


I have never heard pedophiles, violent sex offenders, sadomasochists and

other weirdos called a "sexual minority" before, but this fits with

Christensen's assertion that our efforts to reduce and eliminate these

predators is no different then the oppression of the negro under Jim Crow

laws.  I'm sure the NAACP would love to hear that this oppressed class is

using the history of struggle of blacks in America to obtain legitimacy for

their activities in society.  Needless to say, this book was perhaps the

most difficult I have ever had to read, but I am comforted by the fact that

all this work to identify Mr. Christensen's agenda will never have to be

repeated.  I hope it has also saved other readers from swimming through this

arrogant, sanctimonious rationalization of childhood sex, and the

pornography that supports this desire among us.