This article is based on a lecture given at the annual Ipce Meeting, July 2008. 

In 1,058 cases in his research Michael Baurmann [References: see below]  found that more than 50% of the ‘victims’ declared themselves not to be a ‘victim’. Of the boys in his research, none talked about himself as a victim. 

Another researcher, Rudiger Lautmann, found that his 60 respondents who felt attracted to children had developed their own ethical rules and styles of living, especially with the help of self-help groups. 

Michael Griesemer criticized the usual research on intergenerational contacts as being flawed due to its bad or absent definitions, poor reasoning and other methodological faults. 

And Horst Vogt found that half of his respondents functioned well in society and were psychologically healthy, unless they experienced stress.

Lautmann and Baurmann used a qualitative model, more specifically the narrative model. These researchers asked the respondents to speak out, orally or on paper, about their own experiences, feelings and views, thus presenting their own narratives. 
A researcher using this model does not start with a hypothesis, but only with an open question.

	Lautmann spoke with the adult partners,
	Baurmann interviewed the younger partners.

Another qualitative method is the historical model. The researcher using this model wants to prove a statement or hypothesis with historical data. Griesemer's research is based on this model. 
 

Vogt, to conclude with, uses a quantitative method of rejecting a specific hypothesis. He measures his factors and creates variables, and then studies the correlation between them. 

On the one end of the spectrum, there are models ‘that know already’. In these models no questions are asked, only a direct answer is given. These models are characterized by narrowness of vision and range. 

	A first example is the ‘wrong thinking’ model, in which only politically correct thinking is ‘good’. Whoever thinks otherwise is wrong and, as a result, acts wrong. And whoever acts wrong has a cognitive distortion.
	A second example of narrow ‘science’ is the feminist model. Here also, researchers know the answers before asking any questions. If needed, reality is changed a bit.  In the feminist model the world around us is described according to a very simple scheme: a woman is always good, a man is always bad.
	In ‘demonology’, a third example of a model ‘that knows already’, no thinking can be observed at all, let alone critical thinking.  Here, the dichotomy is not ‘true or not true’, but ‘morally good or bad’. Needless to tell every child lover is bad by definition, a demon. One is blindly led by one's own shadow, one's own inner demon, without knowing it.

In contrast with these examples of narrow models, we will find research models that ask questions and try to find honest answers, models that search for answers in a broader context. 

	In research on the dynamics of the human soul, a first example, one seriously searches on the basis of respect for the human soul and its dynamics.  The researcher describes the inner forces and their dynamics without a moral judgment.
	The historical approach can be another example.  This method sometimes departs from the narcissistic vision that only our modern, Western culture has seen ‘the light’ and that people in other cultures were – or are – simply unintelligent.
	Models of social construction, to mention a third example, try to explain a certain phenomenon within their socio-historical context.  Events that occur in society do so in a particular time era and should be viewed in precisely that context.

Baurmann asks the poor victims and accepts their delusion that they don't see themselves as victims. The victims we treat with our therapies learn that they really are victims. 

Lautmann for his part listens to warped people and takes their narratives seriously. He does a good job by reporting all their cognitive errors! 

Griesemer reports from a dark time in history, before we saw the light, the very truth. 

Vogt simply beliefs what the adults in his research have said and does not pay any attention to the poor victims at all. He says that most of his respondents are quite normal people, but this is impossible! He refuses to see their mental distortions, since having paedophile feelings is a distortion by definition. 

By the way, all these authors must be paedophiles themselves! Their sole aim is to pave the way for the abusers. Having that distortion, they can neither do any sound research, nor draw any accurate conclusions. They are prejudiced – we, of course, are not. 

Use diplomacy, seek a common ground and speak in terms of a shared discourse: human rights, respect for the law, gay and lesbian rights, loving care, children's rights. 

Also: speak the language of your opponents, so at least they can understand what you are trying to say. Use their terms, confirm them, and then add your nuance. Speak about ‘treatment (absolutely necessary, for some’), ‘distortion (true, but only partly’), ‘abuse (true, but not always’) and ‘harm (yes, but not always’).

Michael C. Baurmann, Sexualität, Gewalt und psychische Folgen: Ein Längschnittuntersuchung bei Opfern sexueller Gewalt und sexuellen Norm-verletzungen anhand von angeziegten Sexualkontakten (Wiesbaden, Bundeskriminalamt Forschungsreihe Nr. 15, 1983) 
[A summary in English is here] 
 

Frans E J Gieles, Models, ways of thinking.  
 

Rüdiger Lautmann, Die Lust am Kind, Portrait des Pädophilen, Ingrid Klein Verlag, Hamburg, 1994.
 

Michael M. Griesemer, Ausmaß und Auswirkungen massenmedialer Desinformation. Zum Stand der Wissenschaften über sexuellen Kindesmissbrauch - am Beispiel einer tragischen klinischen Entwicklungsabweichung. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Humane Sexualität e.V., Gießen, 2004.
 

Horst Vogt, Pädophilie; Leipziger Studie zur gesellschaftlichen und psychischen Situation pädophiler Männer. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, 2006.