Dear Dr. Maram, 12-08-05
I have revisited this letter several times, and it still is not quite as clear as I would like, but it seems to be time to call it good enough, and send it on…
Let me remind you again of who I am. In late May of this year, I drove down to your office and underwent a PPG exam. You passed those PPG results on to a Dr. David Pingitore, in Oakland Ca., who then completed my PS Evaluation, and made some recommendations. It is in regard to those tests that I write to you today. For being well ensconced in this self-generating PS juggernaut now (and much to my dismay) I have had plenty of time to reflect upon every aspect and facet of these proceedings. Having done that, I have some questions and comments for you, which I would appreciate if you would read, consider, and respond to: at your leisure, of course- but soon I hope.
I have decided that the best way to open the door to my comments and concerns is to share with you a part of a letter I wrote to Dr. David Pingitore several months ago. But in doing so, I think must also clarify that the permission to consult with Dr. Pingitore- or anybody else, in regards to my case, is hereby revoked. (My feeling is that without that revocation my motives will be misconstrued.) Anyway, here- with only slight alteration, and significant omission- is that letter:
Dear Dr. Pingitore, (dated 7-10-05)
….(Several pages omitted here)…
….. I don’t know how much experience you have had with plethysmographs. If you have not ever listened to one, I would urge that you do so, for having done so, I believe that you too would develop your own misgivings about the process, without anyone having to suggest its deficiencies. I must tell you that I do not have faith in the results. In fact, I believe that I could write a semi-scholarly exegesis on this subject, and persuade any critically thinking person that they should be very skeptical of its “findings”. I will not do this here, but I will instead give you three or four paragraphs of synopsis, along with some salient examples of its inadequacy. Please bear with me.
After playing multiple tapes, depicting coercive and violent sexual situations with teenage and prepubescent girls, the last two tapes the Clinician played for me called for me to imagine sexual situations with first a “girl”, and then with a “boy”. In both cases I was told to regard the youths as, “…just the age (I) like them”. Well that mandate struck me as a starting point that presupposes I have some pederastic or pedophilic tendencies to begin with. For how should I imagine a girl to be “just the age I like her” if I like my “girls” to be adults? So I imagined the “girl” as 21 years old, and then I permitted myself to enjoy the fantasy. As for the “boy”, given the same instructions, I made him 23, which was easy after the tape described his “rippling chest muscles”. How many boys have “rippling chest muscles”? Then- homosexuality being no crime, and the tape being only about masturbation anyway- I was able to enjoy it too. The point is that since no other tape featuring a homosexual theme was played for me, that it had to have been on the basis of this one scenario that the Examiner made his conclusion (about my significant arousal to a vignette involving a male child). Therefore, I think we can reasonably conclude that it was on the basis of these two back-to-back tapes that the Examiner concluded that I had “…achieved significant arousal for sexual vignettes involving a male and female child…” … Well of course I did! My children were adults! Am I to now undergo counseling for my “arousal to children” on these bases?
This is just one example but the whole thing was fraught with similar interpretive problems. Clarification about what part of any given scenario excites the Respondant is not factored in, such when I was appalled by the coercion aspects of a taped scenario, but then endeavored to enjoy the ensuing situation anyway- knowing in advance that most men are aroused by teens*, and therefore feeling no need to try to throw the test by denying this arousal- then that arousal response scores in the “aroused by coercion” column… There is only one score per scenario- at the end of it-so it cannot be argued that the variables are factored in.
Another dynamic involved the nauseating repetitions of abhorrent scenarios of sex and violence, which I resisted, in self-protection. But after several of these, I started to ask myself why he was playing so many of these, and decided that there must be an actual normal low level sexual arousal to some degree of violence, such that by not acknow- ledging arousal to it that I might appear to be less than truthful. So I gave myself arousal scores for those. (You must understand that there is a great deal of anxiety present as well, which clouds the judgment . In other words that may sound like a very odd response, I mean- but under the circumstances it was quite defensible.)
I believed that Dr. Maram would have his own plethysmographically generated scores to compare with my own, so as to negate my own scores if I did not show these responses- but upon questioning him, he told me that it was my own scores which he re-lied upon in his assessment. Incredible! So should I now go to counseling for issues that were “proven” by my own over-stated scores? You cannot expect a critically thinking person to believe in all this. It begs the question of why they would use the Respondant’s scores at all, instead of the generated ones. How scientific can that be? What can possibly be the standards? And if they always use the Respondant’s scores, then why bother with the machine at all? And if they only sometimes use the Respondant’s scores, then when do they use which? I do not think I would be alone in my suspicion that they use the higher scores- so as to best prove the premise that they want to prove! It all suggests im-pure motives, and smacks of some self-perpetuating juggernaut… (Instinctively, Dr. Ma-ram struck me as a good and competent man, and I suspect he is aware of these limita-tions, but nonetheless- as my first Attorney said- in these things they are always deter-mined to find something- and so they always do!.)
So I am afraid that about this, then, I do feel an unsalvageable cynicism. My con-fidence has been decimated. Another fact that supports my contention that it is flawed is that more modern P-S Evaluations now use the ABEL anyway…
In any event, I know that I do not have attitudes about coercing anybody- of any age- into sex. It will be impossible to convince me that I do. I do not say that to be defi-ant, but I have both my self-knowledge and my intellectual skepticisms about this plethysmograph device. I think one day they will write about these things with the same tragic disdain that we now reserve for the likes of Cyril Burt, of days gone by, with his “skull-volume” intelligence evaluations…
So my concern is that you will have recommended me to a counseling scenario with someone who will believe- as a result of this report- that I have coercion issues with young girls.** Thus I envision a scenario in which I enter into counseling with someone who will spend enormous amounts of time and energy attempting to elicit an “admission” from me about this issue (that I do not have) and who will tell me I’m in denial because I won’t admit it, and who will report to the court that I am “not cooperating”, and who will ultimately hold me over for another six months, and then another…and then another…
I think my time would be more productively spent with a regular Psychologist- working on my real issues. (Etc. etc.- the remainder of the letter omitted)
*I was told this by a Dr. Stuart Nixon- a self-styled doyen of the California Psychosexual testing era. Some might say that he’s a real “pioneer”, I suppose, but frankly I thought he was a real ass. His demeanor is one of arrogance, and his attitude is that no one dare to question him! Anyway, what he said was that “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if I found out you responded to teen-aged girls: 90% of men do!”. So I ask you: given that information by a man of such towering stature, why would I then go into such a test believing such a response should not be normal- and allowing myself to respond to something I’ve not given myself permission (perhaps) to respond to before? (Now I’ll bet that they are going to give me a polygraph, on which they will ask me if I’ve ever fantasized about teen-aged girls, and by that they will include those fantasies I felt more or less instructed to undergo ON THAT PPG TEST!)
**Apparently in his zeal to prove this, Dr. Pingitore then tortured some comments I made regarding some confusion I had a s a young man- when I did indeed question whether some women want to be coerced- into a declaration that yes, some women do want this. I was astounded and alarmed: for while some of Dr P.’s misrepresentations might be attributed to some sort of inattention, I suppose, towards that “misunderstanding” I cannot extend to him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, upon re-reading this letter, I was struck with a sense that I was rambling a bit, and not getting to my points. So I had appended this paragraph here, to help redirect me to those points. I think my questions about your interpretations were very clearly asked. But another question concerns whether you advised or consulted with Dr. Pingitore in terms of finalizing my report. You see, he verbally recommended 3-6 months of therapy to me, but in the report he then wrote “a minimum of one year”. So I have wondered what might have occurred in the interim in order to change his mind. I suspect that someone else got involved, and persuaded him to change his mind. And towards that conclusion, I have two primary suspects. You are one, and Dr. Nixon is the other. So to get to the point, I am asking you if you in any way participated in his final report?
I have let the comments about Dr. Pingitore’s effort to prove something that I do not believe was indicated stand because they do dove-tail into an issue which I still have regarding all of this. I first touched upon that issue when I said that I am sure that you are aware of the limitations of the test, but that these tests do seem designed to prove the validity of that “dysfunction” for which we are accused. For if that were not so, then first of all, why would you need to know what I was accused of before administering the test? And secondly, why- for being in possession of this knowledge- would you not have tested for so much more- especially after my putative response to the “boy”?
Asked differently, why didn’t you test for my response to adult male stimuli? Or why did you not test for some response to animal stimuli? How can you purport to know about my psychosexual profile for lack of having tested for all these things? In the glaring absence of those things, surely you cannot fault me for concluding that something is amiss?
That suspicion seems especially justified by that particular conclusion I already focused on: the “boy”, who, being “just the age I like him”, and evincing the “rippling chest muscles”, was the basis for one of your non-sequitor conclusions. I have been around many Europeans who, though in their early twenties, still refer to their peers as boys and girls. Furthermore, I mentioned to you that I regarded these hypothetical test-subjects as adults at the time I took the test. But you swept my comments aside, and misrepresented my response anyway.
And besides: after making such a finding of this significant response to this “boy” why would you not then go on to test for adult male response? (I see that I repeat myself) It cannot be for the reason that consenting homosexual activity between consenting adults is legal, because adult heterosexual activity is also legal, yet you tested me for that! And legality should have nothing to do with your process of establishing these sexual preferences anyway. Ergo, Dr. Maram, I believe your evaluation evinced some troubling omissions- and did indeed seem designed to prove exactly that for which I was accused. And it seemed to in fact do exactly that- through a very suspicious route…
Now to touch upon another gripe I have with your evaluation. It concerns your question to about why a 45-year old man would even want to have sexual relations with a 15-year old girl. You asked me that after I told you that I thought she was 18. In fact, I told you I believed her to be 18 or 19 upon first meeting her- which is still the truth, by the way. It was in view of that disclosure that you asked me that question. Well it may have escaped your notice, Dr. Maram, but if she had been 18 then any sexual activity would have been a legal activity- therefore why I would “want to” would be no concern of yours, or Dr. Pingitore’s, or the courts- and I certainly would not be expected to undergo counseling to deal with that question. Yet just by asking it you give that impression that you believe counseling would be warranted even under that condition- and irrespective of the legal situation. Such a revelation itself engenders more questions about motives. Finally on that point: you were not my PS Evaluator anyway. Therefore I think it was inappropriate for you to even ask that question.
That being said, Dr. Pingitore reported that I told him that I learned the young lady was a minor much earlier on in our inappropriate exchange. But the truth is that Dr. Pingitore tortured many things I said to him, including that. The fact is that as I related the incident he blurted “Well surely somewhere during ALL OF THIS you learned she was a minor?”, and I told him that I had. Then I immediately admonished him for his scolding tone, not realizing that he was assuming (If he really did) that I learned that fact somewhere other than where I had. In other words his “all of this” was different than my “all of this”. Then- consistent with his appalling compilation of misrepresentations and inventions- he (seemingly) invented the point at which I had learned that. (If my suggestion that D. Pingitore was less than fully attentive seems suspect then one must wonder why in the package he sent to me he included half of someone else’s PS report!)
It is in considering this set of circumstances that I wonder whether Dr. P. believes he’d caught me in a lie. Perhaps he believes I told you one thing and then him another, is what I mean to say. I did not. But if so- if that is what he believes- that might explain his reconsideration of the terms of my counseling. Do you know anything about this?
In several letters to Dr. Pingitore, I challenged much of what he had said, in that PS report. An astounding number of things I reported to him were rendered incorrectly.
But now that I have become more savvy to the game, I believe that his representations were deliberate, and designed to snare me in this Psycho/Legal juggernaut. I have come to suspect that is the ethic and “the game”, with these PS Evaluators. (Confirmation of that seemed to come from my current PS Counselor, who-upon learning that Dr. P had said I’d had an “acute depressive episode”, seemed extremely pissed off- as though Dr. P. may have cheated, or betrayed his profession!) Anyway, these people have enormous power, and their first duty is to feed the juggernaut, it seems. So upon realizing that, it became clear that- in light of all his other misrepresentations- that had I challenged that assertion too, Dr. P. would have then declared that I was backpedaling, “in denial” and all kinds of other stuff. A person like me cannot win with these people.
In any event, it is especially because of this latest disclosure (regarding Pingitore’s reportage about Latitia’s age) that I am rescinding permission for you to discuss my case with anybody else. Obviously if I were to empower you to do that, then my actions here would be construed as under-handed, or manipulative: and then I’d be thrown back to the salivating wolves (I think these people are the predators!)
Anyway, all this brings up another question I wish to ask of you today, and it is this: Is it understood among these people they can and must self-servingly feed their Psycho/Legal Complex with anybody who is accused? Do they have all these techniques worked out: all these strategic misrepresentations and clever interpretations? Are there ethics regarding all this stuff? If so, what are those ethics? And should I think these PS Evaluator types are true predators, or am I being overly emotional there? And what of all their operant assumptions? How does a person find justice and truth against this back-ground of glib and sacrosanct but suspicious “assumptions” which enable their behavior, and free them of taking responsibility for their conclusions, and which none of them seem to have the courage to defy?
I welcome and invite your comments, Dr. Maram- being about 90% sure that I won’t get a response. It is easy to ignore such a request, and most people do, I find.
Sincerely, (etc.)
****************************************************************
Letter to Dr. Robert Warren
Dear Bob, 12-10-05
Perhaps it would be wise to postpone my meeting with your Associate, as we had planned for next Friday (12-17-05), until you have had both an opportunity to review Dr. Pingitore’s report about me, and this expression of my concerns about yourself and the process.
I would not want to be in the position of coming in to see your Associate, and paying him for that visit, only to find you are not willing to work with me on the basis of this letter. I do not think that will be the likely outcome, but similar things have happened to me before.
The problem is that we’ve had exactly one meeting and already I have issues. These flow both from patterns I perceived in my past experiences being perceived anew and also a result of several things you said to me at our interview last Friday.
You see, I have had the experience of coming through several steps of this pro-cess, and in each of them – as you can see from my letters- I’ve come out feeling abused. You see that I have accused both Drs. Maram and Pingitore of quite clever misrepresentations, through and through. These events have filled me with distrust, and it is for having been forged on that anvil that I have found- earlier than I might otherwise have- a couple areas of concern in dealing with you. I want to express these things now both so as to promote and preserve trust, and also so that I won’t be surprised and feel deceived about anything later.
The first one concerns the interval during which I expressed my fears about all the things you might be empowered to recommend. Well as I completed my litany, you right away told me you suspected some “anxiety condition” in me, because I would get excited about things before I knew what they are about. Then you went on to confirm that absolutely every item I addressed in that litany was correct! In other words, I was right, and my anxiety was exactly on the nose, yet you pooh-poohed it, and diagnosed it…
I suspect, moreover, that for that having made that “diagnosis”, you would now want me to go on some “meds”. But were you to make such a recommendation- now that that exchange has taken place- I would tenaciously resist it. I wonder whether you were you even aware that that exchange occurred in that fashion? Okay: perhaps I mean to ask you how did you perceive that exchange? But I will add that if do seem somewhat anxious I am sure I will calm down once I get into a situation I believe that I can trust in!
You let me know that you would “recommend” at least three polygraphs. And you led me to believe another PPG was likely too. It’s true you said that I might not need to take the PPG again, but my experience suggests that such a statement is a tease, and that the expectation that I take it again is a certainty.
You also led me to believe that it is likely I would not see the results of any tests I took. And that idea is appalling- especially if you recognize the validity of any of my criticisms already leveled at Drs. Pingitore and Maram. It would be an intolerable state of affairs to be expected to take tests, be bound to therapeutic considerations by their results, and yet not get to see whether still other non-sequitor conclusions were being employed in their conclusions.
You also said something that sounded unmistakably like you were already diagnosing me as having a “sex addiction”, although when I called you on it you said that was not the case. That really concerns me, because it sounded like your unmistakable conclusion, then, and yet it was drawn upon my recounting of but one circumstance. You knew absolutely nothing else about my sexual history when you said that. I suspect, moreover, that in spite of your denial about that, that I am going to in fact go on to get that diagnosis from you, and thus betray (or at lest strongly suggest) that you believed it was valid all along. And if and when I do get assessed in that way, I am going to feel lied to. I’m sorry to say that- but it’s true”! So there we are- just barely out of the gate- and we already have a significant issue- and for two reasons, yet! I do believe that on that one, Dr. War-ren, you already tipped your hand.
What is more, you said that I am to be regarded as a dangerous person, and that nothing- but nothing- is ever going to convince anyone in your profession that that is not the case. You indicated that the best that I could hope for is a report that states that I seem to be of little risk (at some theoretical future time). A lot of that is not recapitulated exactly as you said it, but I have become very good at listening between the lines.
I guess that “conclusion” especially rankles me against a backdrop of the diagnosis Dr. Pingitore gave, of my having had an “acute depressive episode”: an episode in the throes of which I failed to entice, coerce, lure, or engage in any form of violence against my vulnerable victim. And yet the process does not shrink to employ such “conclusions” like that as over-rule common sense
I believe I will be expected to “admit” that the sort of circumstance that occurred with Latitia has occurred before. And I believe that no matter how many lie detector tests and pled admonitions you get from me that should convince you otherwise that you will still expect that “admission”. In other words, my fear there is that the truth will not matter nearly as much as justifying the agenda. I already get the impression that the process is wholly determined to prove that I am a molester, a predator, and an aberrant- and that that process enables itself via many unsupportable “assumptions”.
It concerned me also when you said you thought I was in denial. Then you told me you didn’t have time to tell me what you thought I was in denial about. Well I have got to tell you Dr. W. that that accusation struck me as more trick than substance- such that if we went longer than a very brief while without you either justifying that claim or repudiating it I think I’d lose a lot of trust.
Getting back to the idea of a lie-detector test again. I do not mind taking one at all, as long as- in addition to what you want to ask- all the following questions get asked of me as well:
“Did I believe Corissa was 18 or 19 when I first met her, and when I formed the first attraction?”;
“Did Corissa rub my shoulders without provocation in the Computer Room, and represent herself as a woman?”;
“Did Corissa initiate and propel the sexual activity?” (I don’t care here if some therapists do not think it matters);
“Do I think that excuses me for my participation?”;
“Did Corissa follow me out of the Library and ask if she could drive my car?”; “Did I in any way at any time detain or restrain her, physically or psychologically?”;
“Did I have any knowledge of Corissa’s very existence before she came into the Library that morning?”;
“Did she tell me not to “tell anybody”, as we came down from the hill?”;
“Did she tell me that she loved me, to which I answered ‘You’re scaring me’?”;
“Was my motive in accompanying Corissa up the hill to learn the facts about the rape?”;
“Have I ever been involved in anything remotely close to this before?”;
“Am I a child-molester, pederast, pedophile, or sexual deviant?”;
“Have I ever lured, enticed, coerced, or forced any child or teen into any sexual activity?”;
“Have I ever had sexual relations with a child?”;
“Have I ever had sexual relations with a teen?”;
“Have I ever wanted to have sexual relations with a child?” (As a young adult, I did want to have sexual relations with a teen);
“Aside from during the taking of the PPG, have I ever fantasized about having sex with a child?”;
“Did I believe Corissa to be mentally incompetent?”;
“Did I ever tell anybody I had sat down naked on the ground?”;
“Did I tell Dr. P. I learned that she was 15 when we went to drive my car?”;
“Did I tell Dr. P. that I went to the water tower with Corissa “intending” to have sexual relations with her?”;
“On the morning of my arrest, did I write in my journal ‘what if I just killed myself?’- and had I ever written anything like that before?”.
(I think that’s all for now- but I can imagine some others).
And please do not assume you know my reasons for asking all these things! They are not about denial.
I am saying all of this because I do not want to be surprised- or misled- or told I must do more and more stuff as we get closer to the finish line, and only to find that I am only feeding the juggernaut anyway. What is more, if I were to take a polygraph test, I would have to insist on being allowed to have my own chosen monitor present for it; that after the fact I be allowed to see the result; and that I be allowed to take the test result to an independent analyst, should I disagree with- or be suspicious of- their results. I just cannot allow any more uncorroborated tests to be misconstrued by seemingly agenda-driven analysts.
Aside from that here are some other important considerations I propose:
1) That I will not take a PPG again- nor an ABEL. (These people had their chance, and look what they did with it. And if I were to take it again, chances are I wouldn’t even be allowed to see the results, to challenge them again. And I do not believe that listening to all of that coercion stuff is healthy anyway.)
2) That I come either twice a month for individual sessions, or four times a month for group, for a maximum expense of about $160. (Negotiable, of course)
3) That I be permitted to tape-record every individual session, and have the right to read and comment upon (in advance) any report submitted to anyone on my behalf.“
4) That I will not take any medications.
You should also know that I am likely to be very stubborn about anything you attempt to justify in terms of your “assumptions”. In this Age of the Enabler I cannot allow injustices to be perpetrated against me by people hiding behind convenient sentences, and thus not having to take responsibility for their behavior. I’m tired of it.
Also, since Dr. P.’s report was that I’d had an “acute depressive episode”, as an “explanation” of my crime, then why would you presume to negate that diagnosis, and put me through all kinds of paces related to another- and invalid- explanation… supported, of course- I am sure- by a plethora of the aforementioned assumptions?
Please do not get me wrong, Dr. Warren. I have shown myself to be someone who enters into therapeutic relationships willingly and enthusiastically. And if there are things to learn about myself here and problems to be resolved, then I am all for it. But I want to emphasize that I must protect myself- and that I am only trying to protect myself, with all of these… concerns and conditions. I’m sure you can at least understand those concerns.
What do you think, Dr. Warren: can we make this thing work? Please contact me before next Friday to let me know if I should still see Dr. Meyer.
Thank you,
Sincerely, (etc.)
******************************************************
To Mary Augustyn
(Dated: 3-09-06)
Dear Mary,
Even should you decide not to respond to me again, I believe that you might derive some value from the reading of this letter. In it I shall endeavor to include a point of view from which you might profit, as well as some constructive criticism. Yes- there will be an appeal as well- though recent events suggest to me that an appeal will find no fertile ground with you. But one never knows.
I started out in your group with great enthusiasm, because I believed I had found a format in which my issues could be addressed, and where spirited disagreement would be permissible towards new understandings. I believe you represented that format as a place where such a dynamic would be allowed. I see now that his was incorrect.
I so early on employ the phrase “spirited disagreement”, because it is my belief that in order to change, we must be allowed to raise and question the aspects of a new paradigm with which we are at odds. You must surely allow that as my world view has been in formation for well over forty years, that it cannot be easily cast aside and supplanted by another, as though my mind were a palimpsest.
What I am saying here is of paramount importance, Mary, because it speaks to one of the two areas in which I believe we already came to…loggerheads. I will precede my further comments by saying that I do now see that I might have handled these block-ades differently. I am also going to ask you to consider if it is possible- just possible- that you too might have dealt with these things differently- in ways I will suggest.
I presented you with a list of issues and concerns upon our first meeting, and you addressed many of them at the time. I did not nor do not mean to suggest that they comprised some sort of contractual understanding, obviously, so please do not misunderstand me. That being said, I am going to ask you to refer to them again, if indeed you are reading this letter.
To refresh and restate my issues there, I believe I can summarize by saying that I was appalled and astounded by the misrepresentations and less than honest conclusions being proffered by a cadre of so-called professionals along the way. Indeed, the process took me from an arguably naïve perspective that these people with advanced degrees represent the best of our society: that integrity and idealism inform their personalities on at least some level. Sadly, my experiences embittered me with respect to that view, and I came to be suspicious, and guarded in everything I said. This is a huge and recent issue that I am having to grapple with, Mary- and it permeates my dealings to some extent.
You said last night that I am a very different person now than I was at our inter-view. I am not sure what you mean. I suspect that in saying that you are selecting out a couple things. For while it is true that an early incident left me feeling alienated and disrespected, I have been able to work through those feelings to a large extent and to participate meaningfully in the interim. I do not believe you can deny that I have offered insightful comments and been responsive in the group. (That is aside from the second issue, which I will get to).
You told a story in which you had putatively approached an off-duty police officer in a bar, who both evinced anger symptoms and who was imbibing an alcoholic beverage. And you claimed to have approached him and to have said a horribly antagonistic thing. What was more, you represented his response as very deeply troubling to you, as was the supporting response of the other officers present- because it suggested to you that they might not show sufficient integrity in their jobs. Well as you remember, I am sure, I was appalled by the tale you had told. I explained then that I could not believe that any responsible adult would have done such a thing (as you), and that issuing from a seasoned mental health professional that behavior was all the more egregious. Mary, you did represent this behavior as having happened, and you did represent yourself as having believed that you had done nothing wrong. So I ask you earnestly to reconsider the effect that such a position might have on a person such as me.
Upon further examination, however, you revealed that that event had not happened quite that way at all: that instead you had really asked the officer how he might react… Well my relief at that disclosure was palpable- and I expressed that at the time too. I opined that that disclosure of the additional information made for a completely different story.
I would like to pause here to ask you if this is the place at which I (as you related in a later e-mail) accused you of having mis-represented yourself? Because if it is Mary, then I ask to see this from my eyes: that you DID misrepresent myself, and by your own admission.
Unfortunately you then went on to suggest that in either case- by either version of the story- that had the police officer acted with inappropriate physical behavior, for example- that the protagonist of this tale (you) would have borne absolutely no responsibility or blame for his behavior. I emphatically demurred, and said that while his behavior was utterly and criminally inappropriate, that her contributory behavior was inappropriate too. And unfortunately your interpretation was that I was saying that she deserved it.
Mary, I believe that mature and critically thinking people can discern the difference between degrees of behavior and the issue of what people “deserve”. I am certain that you can do this too- just as well as I. In addition, I have to tell you that I was very disturbed that after years of conducting this type of inquiry- and leading this type of group (?)- that you could not conceive of any other meaning to my words than that I was saying she deserved it. Mary, I have got to tell you here- and as these issues come up- that you response to me there resonated as less than honest. And the whole matter raised questions about who(m) you would so cavalierly enable in other situations- and against whom- and why?
You went on to ask me how that attitude contributed to my life, and I wish I had been permitted to answer. Unfortunately one of my co-group members interrupted there, and the matter was diverted. My answer, Mary, is that such an attitude keeps me from becoming an enabler of abuse. It allows me to assess relative degrees of things- all sorts of things, in all sorts of milieus- without capitulating to rigid, enabled thinking. And it is because of the enormity of that capacity- and the value that I place upon it- that I don’t see easily surrendering such a capacity to a paradigm that so grievously offends me.
Unable to address that point of view then, I said during checkout that I felt angry that my words were so misinterpreted, and that I was concerned that my further sharings would also be so tortured. In closing I said that “I will continue to fight for my vision of the truth”. Unfortunately, once again, Mary, you reinterpreted that as a claim that “I will work very hard to keep anybody from changing my mind”. In this context, I ask you to consider anew what I really said there, and what I really meant by it.
As I see it, most domestic abuse occurs as a result of escalations. Person a says something person b does not like. Person b reacts with something even meaner. Person a raises his/her voice. Person b escalates into a shout. Person a insults person b’s mother. Next come emasculating epithets, or perhaps ugly sexual innuendos. It is a power struggle, in which both sides are losing their control. Finally one person- generally the man- strikes out , and hits the other person. And in doing so, he has made himself the MOST wrong, in this scenario. But every act of escalation in this scenario- as I see it- does not nullify and excuse the behavior of the person whose escalation came before. To maintain that it does is- in my view- to become no more than an enabler.
But perhaps I am wrong.
If one boy is bullying another boy in the schoolyard, and the bullied boy- perhaps the smaller, and the weaker of the two- finally shouts, or cusses, out of hurt and frustration, then I don’t think the entirety of the problem becomes that little Johnny shouts, or that little Johnny uses bad words. In other words I do not believe that the bully is off the hook because little Johnny escalated. (I suspect rather that Johnny does not feel protected there- and does not have the tools to deal with the situation.) Yet that kind of scenario- with that type of resolution- is what I see as the logical extension of what you were propounding. This is why the denouement of that situation in the group so deeply affected me. Taking it to extremes, I came to see that type of perspective- the enforcement of such a paradigm- as having the opposite effect than that which you purport to be about: that is to say, as contributing to the INCREASE of violence in the world, through the vehicle of the rage of injustice. Given all that, can you appreciate why your tale, as you presented it, might in this way affect a person such as me?
You preach a gospel of personal responsibility but I am not sure what you mean. As nearly as I can figure it, you mean that we should consider every combination and permutation of everything that everybody else does in response to our behavior as being something that can be laid at our door. That is just a guess, since I have not heard the philosophy explicated. But if that is correct, then I see that as being extremely paralytic. Moreover, it would seem to support the philosophy that the ends justifies the means, which is a philosophy I have always found abhorrent- and which certainly raises questions about who gets to make decisions about what those ends should be. (This philosophy does not address Garrett Hardin’s crucial question then, of what happens next?) Finally, in its logical extension, it seems to clear the way for all sorts of corporate predation (as in loading cigarettes up with poisons) and corporate negligence (as with the recent Vail case of the woman hurt by twisted metal on the bridge)- not to mention the exploitations, legal predations, and interpersonal abuses enabled via this point of view…
In fact, I wrote about these things in my journals for several days after that night- until I could get my perspective back. And that perspective is that I want to get whatever I can out of the counseling, Mary- but that in order to do that I have to be allowed to explore these issues and concerns. I need to be able to have my concerns addressed.
The larger perspective I finally achieved was that I must keep an open mind to the merits of your paradigm: that since so many people do seem to see things in that way, that I cannot fairly dismiss all these people as just weak, or moral cowards, or agenda-driven; or myopic: that with an open mind perhaps I can come to see some real merit in the paradigm that I have so strongly been resisting. As of now all I can say is that I do not understand it. It needs to be explained.
But no sooner did I arrive at that new perspective than the second shoe dropped.
I do wish I had arranged to have a private session with you, Mary, to deal with my issue there. That I did not do that does speak to my responsibility. I will cop to that. That I had not even thought of doing that does not let me off the hook- because I should have thought of it. On the other hand, I was so deeply disturbed by it all its implications that I would not have been ready to do so, until very recently.
I do want to include at this time the information that I learned just two weeks ago that my father may be in his final illness. I did not want to use this an excuse- but on the other hand, I am equally unable to aver that it does NOT contribute to my response. In other words, maybe it is a factor. I have never dealt with such a thing before. So perhaps it does bear some consideration. (I myself have been sick for 15 days now as well.)
The second shoe dropping was last Wednesday night when you drew me aside just before the group met. You said that because of some court considerations you wanted me to check in differently. And you said that you wanted me to say- among other things- that I had had sex with the girl. I’m afraid that upon hearing these things that I entrenched somewhat. And I want you to understand why a person in my situation would have done that. First was that you indicated that you had very recently re-read my reports. Well Mary, it astounded me that after I have been through- and after telling you what was true, that you somewhat still labored under the illusion that I had had sex with the girl- especially having just recently re-read my reports. I took your claim on face value, however, that you really thought that I had said that, but it still brought up my issues about things that I had feared that in other (less honest) venues I might be expected to say were true- even though they were not true: just so as to make everything that had been done seem to have been justified, perhaps. But I cannot get there Mary. I have told you that before.
But if I am in denial on any these points, I do want to learn that about myself. In order to do that, however, I have to be allowed to challenge things that just do not make sense… For example, there’s the issue of whether I knew about the young lady’s handicap. I say no, as you are aware. And I have a dozen roadblocks in the way of the conclusion that I really did know that: enormous roadblocks- that I think even honest mental health practitioners would agree have merit- and which cannot be swept away even by/ merely by deciding that I am in some sort of denial …
Unfortunately you approached me from the point of view that you wanted me to check in differently because of some consideration of the court. Last night I asked you to consider how differently that conversation might have gone- MIGHT have gone- had you approached me from the point of view that YOU wanted me to take on greater responsi- bility by admitting to the behavior which got me in trouble with the law. Perhaps I would have reacted very differently to that. Or perhaps not. But you did not do that, and in response to what you did instead I got my hackles up. That was because what you said did not make any sense to me: it did not hold water, is what I mean to say. Remember that I too have a copy of my recommendation, and it says that I must undergo counseling with someone who represents him/herself as a provider of that particular type of service. That being achieved, (in you) it was difficult for me to believe that HOW I CHECKED IN would substantially affect that equation from the court’s point of view. That’s why I asked if your approach was just a ruse. Ouch! That seemed to enrage you.
In your later e-mail to me, Mary, you indicated that you would be evincing less than responsible behavior if you allowed me to check in with less than the full story. And that is fine and well, too- and you are right. But I think a critically thinking person would also see in that statement an admission that the claim about the court requirement really WAS a ruse. I’m sorry- In my mind’s eye I see anger forming in your eyes as you read that. But that was how I saw it… And I ask you to try to view that from my perspective.
That does not alter the fact that I could have risen above and transcended those issues at that time. I could have said “Mary- I am less interesting in satisfying the court than in remaining above board with you: if you want me to check in differently then I have been doing then I will do that”. Or again, I could have sought a private session with you to hash all this stuff out. Ergo, I was remiss. I handled the situation poorly.
What I also did not do, however, was to say that “I will have to think about it”. I said that I wanted a week to consult my documents to be sure that I was right regarding my view about the court. I am very angry about the circumstances with the court, Mary. I told you that. I also said that nonetheless I am excited about the opportunity to make some strides in counseling. That is still true, and there is no contradiction there between the two attitudes.
Unfortunately I was much too involved with debunking your claims about the court to deal with the matter at hand in a more responsive way. I was wrong to have not transcended my entrenchment. I could have kept my eye on a larger picture…
That being said, I also did not “refuse to check in correctly”. Indeed, in that very conversation I believe- strongly- that I signified my willingness to do that anyway. But I left that conversation believing we were suspending our dialogue about it… and even in my consequent e-mails I believe I signified my willingness to check in differently regardless of your expressions about the court.
I made a commitment, to you Mary, and I am constern(at)ed to find that you have not made one to me. You cited several reasons for throwing me out of the group, from the “court requirement” (I believe that you are incorrect here), to my “not fitting in” (Well why don’t I fit in, and why do you think my not fitting in is sufficient cause to throw me out of a group you accepted my commitment in?) to how I “refuse to check in correctly” (which I never did refuse- though it is true I might have handled my objections differently) to that I am “a different person than I was eight weeks ago” (I do not think so. I am still enthusiastic about the things I have to share as well as to benefit from. And while it is true that some things that occurred in the group have concerned me, others things have resonated as quite right-on…. So I wonder why YOU think that I have changed?)
Mary, you did not establish ground rules. I said that to you last night and you disagreed- but I am saying it again: no you didn’t. So you have tossed me out of a group for running afoul of rules you have never established…And you admitted that you were tossing me out arbitrarily. I think that was unfair- and in view of what I perceive of as a mutual commitment, inappropriate.
And so we come to the appeal. I am asking you to reconsider. If you will do so, I will pledge myself to a greater fidelity to the spirit of the group. What is more, I will seek you out for private sessions should I develop any more issues with you. I will not ques-tion you or your motives.
Alternatively, would you be amenable to a continuation of my counseling on a one-on-one basis, instead of in a group? Perhaps that would be a more constructive forum
All that being said, there is still one more issue on the able, that I just cannot let lie. That concerns Larry’s behavior last night, when I came to your office, for the usual group meeting. Inasmuch as there was nothing in my demeanor nor my body language which was threatening or should have caused concern, then how can his hitting and shoving me with the door- as I was already on my way out- be reconciled and excused? I suspect that there are men in your counseling sessions who are there for behavior no more egregious than that. What was more, his behavior seemed to evince a personal component. Maybe he is harboring resentment against me because I challenged him when he supported your interpretation of my words during that incident I already spoke to. But regardless: his behavior seemed unnecessarily escalative- in both those circumstances. You must grant that about that my disturbance is reasonable… He acted violently toward me. And this was from an Anger Management Professional. Wow!
In my last e-mail to you I said I would see you on Wednesday- and I believed we would be able to continue our dialogue then. Since nothing came my way to suggest I should not do so, then my appearance there cannot reasonably be construed as inappropriate. And during my brief appearance there, in my view you and I were engaged in a brief but genuine exchange to which his belligerent behavior contributed nothing positive. What gives?
I can’t know what you’ll do, but in any event, I do look forward to mending fen-ces with you someday. I still regard you are worthwhile, despite this disappointment.
Thank You/ Sincerely, (signed)
********************************************************************
To Barry Erdman
4-26-06
Dear Barry,
As a result of our conversation of yesterday, I am sending you my original “psycho-sexual evaluation” and recommendation, which was compiled last summer. I am sure you will find it interesting. It is the only one I have, so please return it to me later.
You should know that in response to this evaluation, I sent Dr. Pingitore several letters, either mildly rebuking or taking him to task for what I identified as misrepresentations therein. I challenged half a dozen of the things he claimed that I had said, as well as the methods employed by Dr. Maram, who administered the initial PPG evaluation, and which gave rise to some of the misperceptions. (I think you will find my challenge to Dr. Maram’s methods fascinating and instructive, if ever you care to see it. Along those lines, I believe you will find my entire assortment of quarrels interesting. I suspect they will all come up regardless, if we/as we progress in a therapeutic relationship.)
That being said, and much to Dr. Pingitore’s credit, after reviewing his notes of our meetings together, he did acknowledge that several of my disclosures had in fact been misrepresented-just as I had said they were! These admissions reside in a letter I received from him, which you are also welcome to see. At this time I will say that the most important disclosure to emerge from that protracted dynamic was his acknowledgment that I do not have coercion issues in the sexual arena: something I already knew about myself.
Anyway, I consider that admission enormous, though at the same time, I wonder whether his initial recommendation would have been very different had he been cognizant of this inconsistency at the time.
He also acknowledged that I did not “escort” the young lady from the Library at all, but that she had pursued me outside after I had already left. But I am disappointed that some of my other claims were not acknowledged, though I do suspect, as I said, that making such admissions as he did make is unprecedented, or at least extraordinary!
I guess my most salient remaining grievance about all of this is that the remaining issues that Dr. Pingitore did identify as being peculiar to me do not strike me as “psycho-sexual” issues. That belief prompted me to request that he refer me to a psychotherapist who is qualified to deal with a broad array of issues, including, obviously, mine. And that broader array of experience is what has drawn me to you, Barry.
I look forward to meeting with you on May 11th, at 1:00 pm.
Thank You,
Sincerely, (etc.)
