Studying abuser gaslighting in first person: Why not all sexual abuse is a "trail of tears" - introducing "paws" abusers

 Many people have a certain image of a pedophile. We have a media image, and a lower level image. We think of pedophiles, generally, as towering abusers, or else they don't exist. Some abusers, however, only tower over their victim, and everyone else thinks "he wouldn't hurt a fly, so you're lying. *gets out the belt*" or even "respect his disability. I don't know where that comes from". Some child sexual abusers have a developmental disability such as autism. Those are the abusers who meet the DSM-5 criteria of pedophilic disorder. These are the pedophilic abusers, and they can do some of the worst damage, but only if they choose to. These are "paws" abusers.

Over 90% of child sexual abuse cases are not reported to the authorities. One reason why that may not be is that the lowest-highest levels of sexual abuse of children are generally resolved civilly, with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) preferring to stay out due to having many cases to deal with, with police being cash strapped. It usually comes in the form of sexual harassment. Perpetrators are usually the locational type of individual with autism, meaning they look up their child victims in a phone book, asking the child for directions. Most children today are smart enough to use simple reverse gaslighting, meaning state a certain address that the abuser knows is false, and they know that you know. An entitled abuser would not get the message, hoping for a later disclosure, a way into the house for company. We are talking a "company" narcissist who visits children, befriends them, than bewilders them with their sexual/limerent gaslighting. These are the pedophiles who do abuse, meaning differentiating from the more developmentally advanced pedophiles who know better around children - the average neurotypical pedophile you see at VirPed...I never claimed to be a virtuous pedophile, now did I? I'm not. They are, and they are not me.

What sort of gaslighting would I use? It wasn't making up a story, or controlling others, but evading blame by hiding small but important details that changed everything. I might want to "be friends" with a child, but be very credible at meaning something that doesn't involve harm or abuse. It was about not getting caught. 

In some ways, I was an antisocial parent, meaning I didn't want a child target to leave my sight. I had spells of anxiety when a child left my sight. It was the same type of low-level anxiety a parent would feel, only I wasn't her parent. What was I afraid of? Her ending up on bad terms with me somehow, and so with one victim, I would wave. That wasn't defined as abusive by her, but some other things were, namely the first time I went up to her - she acted as if there was something off about me, which is a damage, thus proof of abuse. Ultimately, the entitlement was about wanting her to like me, in a way that I wanted to slither through to her house, and maybe a sleepover. What a parent can do then is see ahead, and cancel everything of that sort, or even say "I don't want him here". Keeping an eye on one person with intent to approach them, meaning integrate yourself into their life in a manipulative manner, is abuse.

There were certain boundaries I did not cross, such as when someone calls the police. At that point, you went too far at whatever you were doing, and needed to face the music. When I know the police are coming, I don't blow up, but deflate in a shaky way, and by the time they get there, I'm simply shaken. I tried to obey the law, but looked for loopholes and legal grey areas, including with age of consent law. My thinking was very different then, meaning not religious at all. I did what I wanted in the confines of the rules set forth, meaning park rules, pool rules, or the rules anywhere, but especially the law itself. Apart from getting arrested or kicked out of a place, I believed in nothing, but suspected some things in a confused, traumatic way. 

Reading one book, Thy Rod And Thy Staff They Comfort Me by Samuel Martin, planted a seed that led to me finding God, in a way that led to me being grounded.by God, knowing the limits by way of avoiding entitlement towards children, leading to avoidance of abuse and harm towards a child victim. This reconditioning involves refraining from anger, and also rechannelling and monitoring sexual desires in a way that positioned the idle away from children, as a form of jurisdictional peacekeeper kept to one place in the house, meaning my room. What backs up your resolve to protect your child is facts, including about child development and child sexuality, with which the latter, when understood at the lowest level, precludes the morality of legalizing sex with children, meaning it will never happen. His book allowed me to connect the dots concerning the Bible in relation to its historical context, namely the legal context, to come to anti-pedophilia conclusions. 

I was a toxic atheist, meaning I was an agnostic atheist all whilst committing my acts of abuse, and the reason is that when you don't believe in objective morality, you might fill your head with harmful ideas, meaning you have more room to rationalize and gaslight yourself into thinking that spousifying "relationships" with children are okay within certain parameters. Most atheists don't have this backstory, meaning most atheists are a product of trauma, whereas I simply wasn't taught religion by my parents, yet was punished within the law nonetheless. That's why I believe - so that I am kept from danger by God through His Loving Admonition. This information should be helpful to parents of children, in terms of keeping children safe, from external threats or their own sin nature.