NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe in 50 years it will no longer be considered rape.A time bomb how?

What mode of thinking would cuase me to harm a child? Give examples please.I told you to re-view the thread, so you could see for yourself. The above is by no means a solitary example. Nearly every single post you make, is a text book example of rationalising problematic behaviour.Why isn't the potential for being convicted of a child sex crime good enough motivation for you?It's obviously not working, which isn't extraordinary. Crimes based on self gratification & passion aren't preventable with threats - short of an immediate threat of physical violence. But I doubt you'd put up with being watched by a couple of armed guards 24/7.

The real question here should be: How evil are Speedo's? :confused:


... you took the post right off my computer screen. :) In truly enlightened civilizations, guys -- especially guys with a circumference more than half their height -- would have a sense of the absurd sufficient to shun them.

Anyway, DSN, when you ask "How evil are..." paedophiles, You're kidding right? How can such a thing be quantified by consensus without [a] a generally accepted belief that "evil" is a valid category of action, [b] an objective definition of what qualifies as "evil", [c] an objective way to measure and compare degrees of evil, and [d] a falsifiable means for assigning that objective measure to any particular form of behaviour.

Without at least these, all we have left are personal opinion, which is so idiosyncratic as to tell us nothing. I expect non-smoking paedophiles will find paedophilia "less evil" than smoking, for example, just as I expect parents who aren't paedophiles might think homicide is at least sometimes "less evil" than paedophilia. (Come near my kid with that look on your face, and you'll be attending your funeral.) It's the way people are. One culture or other sub-group thinks eating insects is "disgusting", another regards it as natural and delicious. Who's right? No objectification of the concept of evil means no way to answer the question "how much?"

That's not to say we can't have opinions that paedophilia is or isn't evil (assuming that we think evil is a valid category), but how can we quantify it? If you had asked "Is it evil?" it would be possible to answer. But also pretty pointless, as in "Yes!" "No!" or "What's evil?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/tupp.jpg

Well this makes sense and yes in this society things like what you post here can happen as sex is so demonised in this society.

Still I'm with the Rind Report

And that would be because it backs up your assertions I assume? As to the point you make about sex being demonised in society, I don't think it is. I was brought up with a very balanced view of sex, I don't think that sex is wrong or dirty and I feel no shame what so ever, please do not seek to use this lame response to wipe out the unpalatable truth of what I have told you, I love sex, love to have it, think it's wonderful, am not ashamed by it, revel in it, enjoy all aspects of it, some beyond the usual, but only with my consenting and loving partner, but that does nor take away the fact that at times during the celebration of my love with my partner, I am suddenly and unwantedly taken back to a place in my head where a man commited a series of acts on me that I did not want, did not enjoy, and because I was a small frightened child, could not prevent or stop. I don't WANT to remember him when my lover is touching me, I don't want to have that sad little man share my bed (because in a way that is just what he does, even after all this time) I don't feel shame about sex, I think it IS a shame that this man spoiled my full adult consential enjoyment by taking advantage of me because as a child.

Also to note.

People have suggested that other events in thier past lead to there destruction physical child abuse abuse being a major one. Emotional child abuse being another.

We could try replacing a few words from your paragraph above with he hit me. Now I have a hard to with relationships. I can still feel the coat hanger. I have nightmares. I can still smell the blood etc.

How dare you put words into my mouth in this way, I can smell his semen, I can smell his breath, I can smell the sweat, I can see him, feel him. I would rather he hit me, rather smell my own blood, don't you think I ever bled in my life? was never hit? my parents smacked me as a child, I don't lay awake at night crying about that, don't feel sick because of it when I am having sex.


Not that I don't have empathy for you but. This psychological constructs are rather short in terms of scientific integrity. The claims of life impairment are just that claims. These claims have never been measured against control groups and when studies have done they have been highly biased.
I don't want YOUR sympathy, I want you to stop justifying yourself in your own mind by twisting things that are said to you. I am NOT merely claiming to have been damaged by this man 'playing sex' games with me, I AM damaged and I don't need empathy from a man who is openly admitting to geting aroused by small childrens toilet habits. I can tell you that out of a group of 10 women of the same age as me, from the same background, living in the same area, with the same social status etc etc I am the only one who was submitted to this kind of interference from an adult male as a child, I am the only one who is damaged by it. I am the only one who has flashbacks and that sounds to me like a control group. You are talking out of the back of your head, you and I both know it, stop justifying yourself and face up to what you really know.

An interesting study on men showed this relationship. When men where asked if they where ever molested by a teacher they gave fewer yes answers than when the question was asked as to wether they had sexual relations with a teacher.
And this has what to do with it?

In this witch hunter invirment although the sex may not harm the child. The values society places on sex and the reactions of others most likely will harm the child.

Thanks for your response
As for the sex not harming the child....can you not read? do you suffer from some kind of word blindness that filters out unpalatable sentences? Witch hunting is not a hobby of mine, I have no desire to hunt you down, I just want you to admit to yourself that you have a problem and get some help and in the mean time stay away from ALL children, your sexual interest in them is damaging to them, it's not OK just because you don't physically scar them, I am speaking from experience.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

You could allways try pretending you are one of them offering illegal pictures and see if they take the bait. That is how the police do it.


What a clever idea ... until he turns out to be an undercover cop in the vice squad.
:eek:

I personally advocate having pedophiles dragged out into the street, stripped naked and shot in the groin repeatedly with a taser. Then they can go free.

Well, would you feel it wrong to be hurt against your wish? And when you could not consent to being hurt?

There are things that are wrong because we wouldn't like them done to ourselves, or others, against our or their will. "Evil," on the other hand is a simplistic religious concept, not an ethical one, and thus pointless.


Unfortunately, it isn't all that unusual for paedophilia to go hand-in-hand with the delusion that the victim(s) love the paedophile, and that any appearance of suffering or pain or rejection is really intense sexual pleasure and love being expressed by the child(ren). Meanwhile, the victim has been manipulated and conditioned not to protest or resist overtly, so behaviour sufficiently unambiguous to end the paedophile's delusion tends to be lacking.

So trying to define "wrong" by reference to the attitude of the victim(s) is wasted on the paedophile.

Why? Why are peadophiles any worse than people of any other sexual orienation? Oh yes, the ones who actually rape and molest children aren't worth the carbon they're composed of, but the ones who don't are as human as you or I.

Exactly.

Honestly, any attempt to defend that kind of behaviour just isn't worth it. Bottom line: not many people who aren't paedophiles think that a paedophile isn't a waste of life.

That would mean that 57.5% of the people who took the trouble of entering the poll are likely to be paedophiles?

That would mean that 57.5% of the people who took the trouble of entering the poll are likely to be paedophiles?

That poll is a piece of biased crap written by a paedophile who is trying to make anyone who isn't on his side that it isn't rape and molesting look like neocon idiots.

NERVUN

Science versus orthodoxy:
Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article
and reflections on remedies for future ideological attack

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/rbt/science_frame.htm

The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings. In reviewing the set of background materials available to us, we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behavior that the Committee finds very distressing. (p. 3)

Hmmm, non-consenting sex, not rape? I think that's the definition we've had a very, very long time and by Chuck, I think it will outlast us both by a millenia.

Of what information is required in order to make informed consent to sexual activities?

I think informed consent will be abandoned.

I told you to re-view the thread, so you could see for yourself. The above is by no means a solitary example. Nearly every single post you make, is a text book example of rationalising problematic behaviour.It's obviously not working, which isn't extraordinary. Crimes based on self gratification & passion aren't preventable with threats - short of an immediate threat of physical violence. But I doubt you'd put up with being watched by a couple of armed guards 24/7.

Bull Crap

I'll let you people know that Pedophiles are mostly not responsible for the sexual abuse of children. The abuser is very much often something called a situational offender.

A pedophile is sexually attracted to children and is often mentally upset because of the way society views him or her. Sometimes they will actually believe that they are evil when in honesty, they are simply being what they are.

I wish that it was easier for a pedophile to not be seen as some kind of evil psychopath by the people. People are often afraid of what they don't understand. Paedophiles are just average people with a love for children, and most wouldn't even actually have sexual relations with them, though they would love them as an equal.

In honestly, this fear of pedophiles is much more recent than it seems. Though ephebophilia was much more accepted in the past than pedophilia, both weren't seen as vile. If anything, back in those days (in western civilization), all attractions were equally vile, unless you were a homosexual, they were much more persecuted back then.

About as evil as gays, or people with a foot fettish.


Although those foot sucking people are wierdos.

I agree 100% with this statement. Damn foot fetish people... So scary...

Pedos are just very kinky people.
:fluffle:

To Carisbrooke
Member

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In England
Posts: 194


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadowy Nexus
Well this makes sense and yes in this society things like what you post here can happen as sex is so demonised in this society.

Still I'm with the Rind Report

Carisbrooke
And that would be because it backs up your assertions I assume? As to the point you make about sex being demonised in society, I don't think it is. I was brought up with a very balanced view of sex, I don't think that sex is wrong or dirty and I feel no shame what so ever, please do not seek to use this lame response to wipe out the unpalatable truth of what I have told you, I love sex, love to have it, think it's wonderful, am not ashamed by it, revel in it, enjoy all aspects of it, some beyond the usual, but only with my consenting and loving partner, but that does nor take away the fact that at times during the celebration of my love with my partner, I am suddenly and unwantedly taken back to a place in my head where a man commited a series of acts on me that I did not want, did not enjoy, and because I was a small frightened child, could not prevent or stop. I don't WANT to remember him when my lover is touching me, I don't want to have that sad little man share my bed (because in a way that is just what he does, even after all this time) I don't feel shame about sex, I think it IS a shame that this man spoiled my full adult consential enjoyment by taking advantage of me because as a child.

You are disgibing a sex act that not only did you not give informed consent but that you gave no consent at all. The sex act you discribe has a sadistic nature to it.

Let's compare and contrast here.

I love sex, love to have it, think it's wonderful, am not ashamed by it, revel in it, enjoy all aspects of it, some beyond the usual.

I think it IS a shame that this man spoiled my full adult consential enjoyment by taking advantage of me because as a child.

You claim here little problem in your sex life. Only the occasional falsh back.

As you you claim I love sex, love to have it, think it's wonderful, am not ashamed by it, revel in it, enjoy all aspects of it, some beyond the usual.

"It's a shame" is a little short on effect here maybe tragedy was more the word you where looking for.

As to your full enjoyment of sex have you compared yourself to yourself without the introduction to sex as a child. Kinda a rhetorical question here as I know you can't make that comparison. It's a question that can never be honestly answered.

Dark Shadowy Nexus
People have suggested that other events in thier past lead to there destruction physical child abuse abuse being a major one. Emotional child abuse being another.

We could try replacing a few words from your paragraph above with he hit me. Now I have a hard time with relationships. I can still feel the coat hanger. I have nightmares. I can still smell the blood etc.

How dare you put words into my mouth in this way, I can smell his semen, I can smell his breath, I can smell the sweat, I can see him, feel him. I would rather he hit me, rather smell my own blood, don't you think I ever bled in my life? was never hit? my parents smacked me as a child, I don't lay awake at night crying about that, don't feel sick because of it when I am having sex.


I didn't put words in your mouth. I was only suggesting your claim of sex acts being more vile than all other types of abuse could be claimed just the opposite and backed up with a similer story.

my parents smacked me as a child, I don't lay awake at night crying about that, don't feel sick because of it when I am having sex.

You could claim life long damaging effects just the same.

Dark Shadowy Nexus
Not that I don't have empathy for you but. This psychological constructs are rather short in terms of scientific integrity. The claims of life impairment are just that claims. These claims have never been measured against control groups and when studies have done they have been highly biased.

Carisbrooke
I don't want YOUR sympathy, I want you to stop justifying yourself in your own mind by twisting things that are said to you.
I am NOT merely claiming to have been damaged by this man 'playing sex' games with me, I AM damaged and I don't need empathy from a man who is openly admitting to geting aroused by small childrens toilet habits.


Again claims to damage are just that claims. You are damaged becuase you won't let it go. This is pathological on your part. You seem to cling to these sex acts in your child hood as justification for where your life is right now. Tell me are you crying when you tell me this? Is there a reason I shouldn't believe your claims are not being made in order to gain attention sympothy and and exscuse?

Carisbrooke
I can tell you that out of a group of 10 women of the same age as me, from the same background, living in the same area, with the same social status etc etc I am the only one who was submitted to this kind of interference from an adult male as a child, I am the only one who is damaged by it. I am the only one who has flashbacks and that sounds to me like a control group. You are talking out of the back of your head, you and I both know it, stop justifying yourself and face up to what you really know.

I honestly doubt you would know the detailed sex lives of ten women. The term interference suggests that the introduction to some form of forbiden knowledge has life long consequences. The Cathlic church claims similer interference from its listing of banned books. Pornography is banned based on the idea of interference and children are banned from seeing porn based on the consept of interence.

by Dark Shadowy Nexus
An interesting study on men showed this relationship. When men where asked if they where ever molested by a teacher they gave fewer yes answers than when the question was asked as to wether they had sexual relations with a teacher.

Carisbrooke
And this has what to do with it?

It appears that that manny men do not percieve sexual contact with a female teacher as a student in high school as child molestation. It demonstrates the difering perspective people have when it comes to sexual relations between adults and children.

Dark Shadowy Nexus
In this witch hunter invirment although the sex may not harm the child. The values society places on sex and the reactions of others most likely will harm the child.

Thanks for your response

Carisbrooke
As for the sex not harming the child....can you not read?

Yes I can read. Can you read?

Carisbrooke
Do you suffer from some kind of word blindness that filters out unpalatable sentences?

No such suffering here.

Carisbrooke
Witch hunting is not a hobby of mine, I have no desire to hunt you down, I just want you to admit to yourself that you have a problem and get some help and in the mean time stay away from ALL children, your sexual interest in them is damaging to them, it's not OK just because you don't physically scar them, I am speaking from experience.

I never said it was completly harmless. I questioned where the harm comes from and whether there always is harm.

Carisbrooke
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

Pedos are just very kinky people.
:fluffle:
Pedos who coss my path are just very dead people.

People who are not developed sexually (i.e. children) are not sexual people and should not be treated as such.

People who are not developed sexually (i.e. children) are not sexual people and should not be treated as such.

Superstition.

Superstition.

Rationalisation. How can you say that and actually believe it? Kids are not developed like that. That's what growing up is. Development. How can you put your own petty desires above someone's wellbeing? Do you have no conscience?

Not evil, simply warped... Hell, for all we know, the people who AREN'T pedo could be evil from their viewpoint.

This is probable.

Also, children are sexual from womb. Do some research, my dear. However, to forcibly molest them would be bad. In my honest opinion, love shouldn't be persecuted.

Pedo's should get the death penalty

*bangs head on table*

Pedophiles are NOT NECCESSARILY child molesters. I agree that convicted child molesters should be locked up, but a pedophile who does not act on his or her urges should not. It's difficult for them, and I get pissed off every time someone says "OMG EVUL PEDOS!!!!!11111!!1!"

I love you.

Those attractions attributed to DSN sounds kind of like nepiphilia, but I guess it really is a philia combo.

Though there should have been no mention of the subject at all, considering the obvious risk of persecution.

I love you.

Those attractions attributed to DSN sounds kind of like nepiphilia, but I guess it really is a philia combo.

Though there should have been no mention of the subject at all, considering the obvious risk of persecution.


Nepiphilia? Wha be that?

Rationalisation. How can you say that and actually believe it? Kids are not developed like that. That's what growing up is. Development. How can you put your own petty desires above someone's wellbeing? Do you have no conscience?

Some kids are. Puberty is occuring earlier and earlier due to better diets and nutrition, as I understand it. Wasn't there a yesterday about two 12 year olds makin a porno of themselves and giving it to the boys in their school?

Nepiphilia? Wha be that?

wikipedia: Nepiophilia, also called infantophilia, is the attraction to toddlers and infants (usually ages 0-3).



Some kids are. Puberty is occuring earlier and earlier due to better diets and nutrition, as I understand it. Wasn't there a yesterday about two 12 year olds makin a porno of themselves and giving it to the boys in their school?

Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescents. Attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia.

Nepiphilia? Wha be that?Toddler rape...Some kids are. Puberty is occuring earlier and earlier due to better diets and nutrition, as I understand it. Wasn't there a yesterday about two 12 year olds makin a porno of themselves and giving it to the boys in their school?The reason our societies have an age of consent, is because people younger than that aren't in any position to handle an adult relationship.

Shit.. Some of the replies in this thread makes me ill. DSN if you really hope you'll some day be allowed to rape infants, you need to be locked away. Far, far away.

While I don't share most people's hostility toward mere desires, I really don't think there is any case to be made that children can consent to sex and arguing otherwise is silly at best and more often quite disturbing. Children have to pass through a series of mental stages of development and before they reach a certain stage, they simply aren't ready to handle certain concepts.

Children have actually been tested on this sort of thing. As an example, children below a certain age can't grasp volume. if you take a pile of seeds and place it on a table and then spread the seeds out so they cover a larger area, a 5 year old will respond that the spread pile is larger even though the number of seeds hasn't changed at all. Below a certain age, children are not yet aware that things continue to exist when not perceived or that cause comes before effect.

The straight dope is that children simply don't have the readiness to fully consider the ramifications of sex. Of course, this is just what I've read, and I'm no expert on psychology, but it is pretty well confirmed by the scientific community. Of course, one could take a Nietzschean angle and argue that might makes right, but I would not recommend that to DSN.

... Children have to pass through a series of mental stages of development and before they reach a certain stage, they simply aren't ready to handle certain concepts.

Children have actually been tested on this sort of thing. ... Below a certain age, children are not yet aware that things continue to exist when not perceived or that cause comes before effect.

The straight dope is that children simply don't have the readiness to fully consider the ramifications of sex. Of course, this is just what I've read, and I'm no expert on psychology, but it is pretty well confirmed by the scientific community. ...

As far as you go, you're correct. This is the rest of it. Children not only don't understand the ramifications of sex, they are highly vulnerable to being manipulated/coerced/"groomed" into being victimized, and then blaming themselves for "seducing" the abuser. If grooming starts early enough, a victim will continue to internalize the blame for the molestation into adulthood, long after the age when non-victims are able to see through such deceit and blame-shifting by a molester.

In short, the time necessary for children and young pubescent teens to develop psychologically renders them vulnerable to sexual predation accomplished by deceptive and manipulative techniques. One of the effects of these techniques is to turn the minds of the victims against themselves and render them vulnerable to control and abuse by sexual predators. Child-rape and related abuse results because the such youths are insufficiently mature to protect themselves from the kind of person who deludes himself about the nature of sexual abuse and deceives his victims into share his delusions.

Children and young teens need to be protected from self-gratifying predators until they have achieved sufficient maturity to protect themselves.

NERVUN

Science versus orthodoxy:
Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article
and reflections on remedies for future ideological attack

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/rbt/science_frame.htm

The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings. In reviewing the set of background materials available to us, we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behavior that the Committee finds very distressing. (p. 3)
I ain't arguing Congress's actions. Congress isn't academia where Rind has been addressed and found wanting. Stop trying to change the battlefield so as to find something to cover your flimsy defence.

In the meantime, instead of reading Rind, try these instead.

Title: Sex With Children Is Abuse : Comment on
Author(s): Ondersma, Steven J., Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University
Chaffin, Mark, Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Berliner, Lucy, Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress, University of Washington
Cordon, Ingrid, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Goodman, Gail S., Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Barnett, Douglas, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
Source: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127(6), November 2001. pp. 707-714.

Title: The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
Author(s): Dallam, Stephanie J., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
Gleaves, David H., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Cepeda-Benito, Antonio, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Silberg, Joyanna L., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Trauma Disorders Program, Sheppard Pratt Health System, Baltimore, Maryland
Kraemer, Helena C., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Spiegel, David, Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Source: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127(6), November 2001. pp. 715-733.

Don't see Dr Laura in there. I do see a well reasoned critque on Rind. I also enjoyed the first paper, especially as it noted:
Further, the use of value-neutral terminology may only be feasible when there is little risk that certain individuals might infer that widely condemned behaviors are acceptable. This is particularly true when a small but vigorous minority is actively seeking to justify illegal acts that contradict consensual public morality. For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse. This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors. Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification).
Which sounds very, very familar, probably because it is exactly what you have been attempting to do here.

its funny how most voted no more or less evil than anyone else b/c the last pedo to move in my town with a convicted child rapist/murderer

Grammar is usage, even more so for English.
My guess is that we are both right.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

That said, it seems to be a contraction created by the OP and would certainly be marked incorrectly by a teacher of English.

Dosn't sound like it to me.

I believe a person needs to match all three criteria.

Stll even the one is short of a match.

Sorry, the word OR means that they don't have to match all three criteria. This criteria, this criteria or this criteria.


Or are you going to pull a Clinton and ask for a definition of "is"?

There is no such thing as "evil."

No offense, sir, but that is complete bullshit. Look at Hitler, etc.

its funny how most voted no more or less evil than anyone else b/c the last pedo to move in my town with a convicted child rapist/murderer

Keep in mind that merely having pædophilic desires is not something you can judge morally. They don't have a choice what their sexuality is.

Nah

I've seen it before.

People claim abstinance education is there to protect kids from pregnancy and disease. Truth is no it's not abstinance education is to keep children sexually pure. Pregnancy and disease is justifiable Gods wrath, People claim they are against abortion becuase it cuases the women who get one to have depression. Tturh is they are against abortion becuase they believe spiritual and not a physical diffinition of life and to them abortion is murder. It's intelectual dishonesty.

Why is it that only pedophiles need to pay God awful therapy costs to keep them from acting out while everyone else gets off scott free?

Because a child getting pregnant for willingly engaging sexual activity with another child, and a woman willingly getting an abortion, have chosen to take that risk.

A pedophile who chooses to act on his or her desires is imposing them on a child, who does not have the intellectual capacity to make an informed choice.

Or, to make it very simple:
The first two scenarios show people who, through poor choices, harm themselves. The last scenario shows people who, through poor choices, harm others.

See the difference?

Because a child getting pregnant for willingly engaging sexual activity with another child, and a woman willingly getting an abortion, have chosen to take that risk.

A pedophile who chooses to act on his or her desires is imposing them on a child, who does not have the intellectual capacity to make an informed choice.

Or, to make it very simple:
The first two scenarios show people who, through poor choices, harm themselves. The last scenario shows people who, through poor choices, harm others.

See the difference?

I never suggested that placing children at risk for pregnancy and STD should be legalised.

Unfortunately, it isn't all that unusual for paedophilia to go hand-in-hand with the delusion that the victim(s) love the paedophile, and that any appearance of suffering or pain or rejection is really intense sexual pleasure and love being expressed by the child(ren). Meanwhile, the victim has been manipulated and conditioned not to protest or resist overtly, so behaviour sufficiently unambiguous to end the paedophile's delusion tends to be lacking.

So trying to define "wrong" by reference to the attitude of the victim(s) is wasted on the paedophile.

Speculative. No research done.

Rationalisation. How can you say that and actually believe it? Kids are not developed like that. That's what growing up is. Development. How can you put your own petty desires above someone's wellbeing? Do you have no conscience?

Yup do you?

Toddler rape...The reason our societies have an age of consent, is because people younger than that aren't in any position to handle an adult relationship.

Shit.. Some of the replies in this thread makes me ill. DSN if you really hope you'll some day be allowed to rape infants, you need to be locked away. Far, far away.

MY AOA is 4 to 11 with a preference for girls.

While I don't share most people's hostility toward mere desires, I really don't think there is any case to be made that children can consent to sex and arguing otherwise is silly at best and more often quite disturbing. Children have to pass through a series of mental stages of development and before they reach a certain stage, they simply aren't ready to handle certain concepts.

Children have actually been tested on this sort of thing. As an example, children below a certain age can't grasp volume. if you take a pile of seeds and place it on a table and then spread the seeds out so they cover a larger area, a 5 year old will respond that the spread pile is larger even though the number of seeds hasn't changed at all. Below a certain age, children are not yet aware that things continue to exist when not perceived or that cause comes before effect.

The straight dope is that children simply don't have the readiness to fully consider the ramifications of sex. Of course, this is just what I've read, and I'm no expert on psychology, but it is pretty well confirmed by the scientific community. Of course, one could take a Nietzschean angle and argue that might makes right, but I would not recommend that to DSN.


This feels good

This feels bad.

Not a hard conscept to grasp. The taboos that go with the activities might be but the acts themselves no.

The only risks being pregnancy and disease but I wouldn't wish to see children presented with such risks.

As far as you go, you're correct. This is the rest of it. Children not only don't understand the ramifications of sex, they are highly vulnerable to being manipulated/coerced/"groomed" into being victimized, and then blaming themselves for "seducing" the abuser. If grooming starts early enough, a victim will continue to internalize the blame for the molestation into adulthood, long after the age when non-victims are able to see through such deceit and blame-shifting by a molester.

In short, the time necessary for children and young pubescent teens to develop psychologically renders them vulnerable to sexual predation accomplished by deceptive and manipulative techniques. One of the effects of these techniques is to turn the minds of the victims against themselves and render them vulnerable to control and abuse by sexual predators. Child-rape and related abuse results because the such youths are insufficiently mature to protect themselves from the kind of person who deludes himself about the nature of sexual abuse and deceives his victims into share his delusions.

Children and young teens need to be protected from self-gratifying predators until they have achieved sufficient maturity to protect themselves.

Specualative no research has been done. Most likely bull crap.

I ain't arguing Congress's actions. Congress isn't academia where Rind has been addressed and found wanting. Stop trying to change the battlefield so as to find something to cover your flimsy defence.

In the meantime, instead of reading Rind, try these instead.

Title: Sex With Children Is Abuse : Comment on
Author(s): Ondersma, Steven J., Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University
Chaffin, Mark, Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Berliner, Lucy, Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress, University of Washington
Cordon, Ingrid, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Goodman, Gail S., Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Barnett, Douglas, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
Source: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127(6), November 2001. pp. 707-714.

Title: The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
Author(s): Dallam, Stephanie J., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
Gleaves, David H., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Cepeda-Benito, Antonio, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Silberg, Joyanna L., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Trauma Disorders Program, Sheppard Pratt Health System, Baltimore, Maryland
Kraemer, Helena C., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Spiegel, David, Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Source: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127(6), November 2001. pp. 715-733.

Don't see Dr Laura in there. I do see a well reasoned critque on Rind. I also enjoyed the first paper, especially as it noted:

Which sounds very, very familar, probably because it is exactly what you have been attempting to do here.


The research was not flawed.

Sorry, the word OR means that they don't have to match all three criteria. This criteria, this criteria or this criteria.


Or are you going to pull a Clinton and ask for a definition of "is"?

Originally Posted by DSM-IV-TR
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

How about where is the or.

Specualative no research has been done. Most likely bull crap.
And what are you basing this "liklyness" off of?

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ. Another pity poll.

Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable in this modern age. Drop it.

It's a mental illness and unless you act upon it you deserve help instead of a bullet to the head or a shiv through the back.

Will you stop trying to find sympathy votes? Christ.

:rolleyes:

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ. Another pity poll.

Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable in this modern age. Drop it.

It's a mental illness and unless you act upon it you deserve help instead of a bullet to the head or a shiv through the back.

Will you stop trying to find sympathy votes? Christ.

:rolleyes:

Who said I was looking for sympathy?

I have my own scholarly research on the topic:

"Ahem."

"Wanting to screw children is really fucking sick. Go away, the end."

Who said I was looking for sympathy?

You, by the habit of posting threads on pedophilia. First you tried to rationalize how pedophilia doesn't necessarily harm children, then with this crap you're dwelling on a persecution complex.

You, by the habit of posting threads on pedophilia. First you tried to rationalize how pedophilia doesn't necessarily harm children, then with this crap you're dwelling on a persecution complex.

Persecution complex?

Like there is no persacution of those who get turned on by the young.

Interesting.

The research was not flawed.
Just posted two papers from a very wide range of very experianced and knowledgeable folks who disagree with you and take great pains to point out that yes, it was flawed, where it was flawed, why it is flawed, and what it means in the larger context.

But, yet again, you ignore that because you want to, because it does not provide justification for you to continue to lust after little girls in wet pants.

How about where is the or.
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Can you read the or's now?

Just posted two papers from a very wide range of very experianced and knowledgeable folks who disagree with you and take great pains to point out that yes, it was flawed, where it was flawed, why it is flawed, and what it means in the larger context.

But, yet again, you ignore that because you want to, because it does not provide justification for you to continue to lust after little girls in wet pants.

No

It is becuase I'm to lazy to read all that. That claim they make is as encredable as a talking snake in a magical tree and I'm well aware of the re-evaluation done after there so called discoveries of bias and flaws. Everything is covered and than some.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Can you read the or's now?

But where is the A, B, or C? I'm well aware of the "ors" in A B and C but what about the ones inbetween A, B, and C.

No

It is becuase I'm to lazy to read all that. That claim they make is as encredable as a talking snake in a magical tree and I'm well aware of the re-evaluation done after there so called discoveries of bias and flaws. Everything is covered and than some.
Really?

Try this:
Sex With Children Is Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
By: Steven J. Ondersma
Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University
Mark Chaffin
Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Lucy Berliner
Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress, University of Washington
Ingrid Cordon
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Gail S. Goodman
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Douglas Barnett
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
Acknowledgment:
This article is a revised and extended version of a commentary previously published in the newsletter of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children and was sponsored, in part, by the Section on Child Maltreatment of Division 37 (Child, Youth, and Family Services) of the American Psychological Association.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Steven J. Ondersma, Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University, 71 East Ferry Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. Electronic mail may be sent to: s.ondersma@wayne.edu

An article authored by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman, entitled “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” was published in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin. It initially received little attention outside the scientific community. However, when the article was hailed on the Web site of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pedophilia advocacy sites as providing scientific evidence in support of their views, it was brought to the attention of Laura Schlessinger, a radio talk show host, in the spring of 1999. “Dr. Laura” characterized the article as endorsing adult sex with children and attacked the American Psychological Association (APA) for publishing it. Public furor ensued when the perceived implications of the article became the talk of the airwaves, newspaper columns, and the Internet.

Eventually some members of Congress were informed and joined the outcry. On July 12, 1999, the House of Representatives proposed a resolution condemning what it interpreted as suggestions in the article that sexual relationships between “willing” children and adults are not harmful and might be positive and noting that one of the authors had previously published in what the resolution described as a propedophilia journal (i.e., Paidika, Issue 5). The APA responded to this situation in a variety of ways. First, the scientific validity of the article was defended in a statement to the APA Council of Representatives dated May 25, 1999. The memorandum explained the findings and asserted that the article did not support changes in current social policy or law. To counter any misperceptions engendered by the article, the APA Board of Directors also issued a resolution asserting the association's position against child sexual abuse and asserting that sexual abuse causes serious harm to its victims.

On June 9, 1999, Raymond Fowler, chief executive officer and executive vice-president of the APA, sent a letter to Representative Tom Delay, majority whip and chief congressional critic. This letter acknowledged that the APA had given insufficient attention to the implications for public policy contained in the article and stated that the article included opinions of the authors that were inconsistent with APA positions. Specifically, the letter stated that some of the language in the article was inflammatory, reasserted the APA's position that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults, and emphasized that sexual activity between adults and children should never be “considered or labeled harmless or acceptable.” Also highlighted were the APA's plans for addressing any possible misperceptions, including a promise to prepare amicus briefs for use in court to challenge any attempts to base defense of child sexual abuse (CSA) on the Rind et al. (1998) study.1

The APA then took the unprecedented step of requesting an independent review of the article in question from the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS chose not to perform this review, stating in a letter dated October 4, 1999, that they believed the peer review process and subsequent discussions among professionals to be an adequate and appropriate means of response. Without performing a thorough review, the AAAS noted in this letter that they saw “no clear evidence of improper application of methodology.”

Clearly, a range of issues concerning science and public policy has been raised by the publication of this article. The controversy surrounding it is a microcosm of many larger debates. At issue is scientific freedom, the relation between science and values (those of the scientist as well as those of academia and the larger public), scientists' responsibility for awareness of potential public use of their data, and the historical progression of scientific and social movements pertaining to controversial topics. The issues raised are especially relevant to the APA as a professional society because social perceptions of the APA have an impact on public trust and therefore influence the ability of psychologists to practice—particularly in service to victims of child maltreatment.

Sociohistorical Context
Historical trends regarding CSA have varied and evolved over time (Olafson, Corwin, & Summit, 1993). Perhaps the most long-standing school of thought regarding CSA has held that it is a rare and relatively innocuous phenomenon that is often made up by the supposed victim, which—when it does occur—is typically at least partially the fault of the child him- or herself. According to some accounts, the fervor with which this view has been held led to Sigmund Freud's being ostracized for his initial suggestion that neuroses were largely the result of CSA, as well as his consequent reversal on the issue (Masson, 1984).

A second perspective regarding CSA became more prominent in the mid-1970s. Through the accumulating influences of the child protection, victim's rights, and women's movements, combined with emerging scientific research regarding CSA, a dramatic shift in public awareness of and concern regarding CSA took place (Myers, Diedrich, Lee, Fincher, & Stern, 1999). Children began to be seen as victims of adult sexual exploitation who were in need of protection. As with all movements, advocates for victims of CSA have had their share of extreme protagonists. In some quarters, the zealously disseminated thesis was that sexual abuse was ubiquitous, was never falsely alleged, and was inevitably seriously harmful. Some child advocates and the popular media embraced these postulates into the 1980s.

By the late 1980s, however, the ascendancy of the child protection movement was met with what is popularly known in the child abuse field as “the backlash,” or the energetic and highly critical reaction of skeptics to professional practices surrounding CSA. These skeptics became invested in efforts to debunk the excesses, both real and imagined, of the sexual abuse field. Scientific publications questioned the reliability of recovered memories of CSA and of child testimony regarding CSA. As with data regarding the prevalence and dangers of CSA, these reports were used by some advocates to support their extreme views (in this case, to vigorously question the validity of nearly all alleged cases of CSA). As a result, although initially emphasizing the “hidden problem” of sexual abuse and our collective denial of its reality and impact, media and public attention shifted to a focus on false allegations, overzealousness, and witch-hunting (Beckett, 1996). The results of this backlash continue to have an impact on our profession. For instance, a review of 24 recently published introductory psychology textbooks found that few devoted any significant space to CSA, and those that did focused primarily on the frequency of false memories and suggestive interviewing (Letourneau & Lewis, 1999).

The Rind et al. (1998) manuscript appears to have been written and accepted for publication within the context of this backlash. Evidence of this is found in Rind et al.'s introduction, in which they take as their premise the need to critically examine widespread and dominant beliefs that, invariably “(a) CSA causes harm, (b) this harm is pervasive in the population of persons with a history of CSA, (c) this harm is likely to be intense” (p. 22). But how true is it that such beliefs are widespread? Most child abuse researchers have long believed that CSA, like other forms of maltreatment, is associated with a wide range of reactions and outcomes (from devastation to no detectable harm), may or may not be traumatic, and may or may not lead to mental health problems in the short or long term (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Finkelhor, 1979).

Evidence of this more moderate view within the child maltreatment field is readily available. As far back as 1979, a pioneer in the field emphasized that children may not be clearly harmed by sexual abuse, and may even report such experiences as positive (Finkelhor, 1979). In 1993, a review article published in Psychological Bulletin emphasized that a significant number of sexually abused children have no measurable long-term negative outcomes (Kendall-Tackett, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993). Others (e.g., Fromuth, 1986) have reported similar results, and differ more from Rind et al. (1998) in their interpretation of findings than in the findings themselves. Rather than focusing on the lack of inherent harm in CSA because some children are not affected, previous publications have carefully qualified their findings, have demonstrated an interest in understanding the resiliency among children who are not negatively affected, and have left untouched the basic societal value that sex with children is abuse.

Analysis of Rind et al. (1998)
Much of the concern regarding Rind et al. (1998) has centered on the small CSA-outcome effect sizes they report, leading to criticism of their methodology and findings (e.g., Dallam, Gleaves, Cepeda-Benito, Silberg, Kraemer, & Spiegel, 2001). Although we do not endorse Rind et al.'s data (and in fact have some specific methodological criticisms), it is our belief that the findings themselves are not cause for anything other than normal scientific skepticism. Our deeper concerns—like those of many—lie less with the data than with their presentation. We will thus consider the data and their presentation separately, as well as the definitional issues that the authors raised.

Methodology
As stated above, a number of methodological criticisms have been leveled against the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis. In one of the few published commentaries, Spiegel (2000) criticized Rind et al.'s methodology in a number of ways. For example, he emphasized the tendency for victims of CSA to show only a subset of all possible symptoms; thus, any one symptom may not be significantly elevated in the CSA population as a whole, even though the majority of individuals demonstrate some symptoms. He also noted that the abuse-specific outcome of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was absent in the list of dependent measures used by Rind et al. and that failure to prove a relationship does not prove that a relationship does not exist.

Close reading of the original sources (of which we were able to gather approximately 75%) suggests that there may be further reason for closer analysis of Rind et al.'s (1998) findings regarding self-reported reactions to and effects of CSA. For example, 11 of 15 studies listed in Table 7 (p. 36) and 7 of 11 studies listed in Table 8 (p. 37) used definitions of CSA that include both contact and noncontact sex. In another study, fully 83% of males' “CSA” experiences involved a proposition by an adult, but not actual sexual contact (Landis, 1956). Appropriate interpretation of Tables 7 and 8, in our opinion, would have been greatly facilitated by a caveat emphasizing the types of experiences included in the studies listed.

In spite of the above, we are most troubled by the firm conclusions drawn from the partialization of family environment when virtually all data were derived from self-report, retrospective, quasi-experimental studies. Although the use of retrospective quasi-experimental designs is common in the absence of better (i.e., prospective) data, retrospective designs are particularly problematic for assessing the relative contributions of risk factors such as CSA and family environment. Family environment is of special concern in this regard, in part because it may be at once a risk factor, a correlate, and an outcome of CSA. These and other concerns are described in detail by Briere and Elliot (1993).

In this vein, Garbarino and Eckenrode (1997) have likened events of abuse or neglect to a fever, often of concern in its own right, but also an intrinsic part of a larger pathology. Thus, to remove variance associated with a negative family environment is to artificially separate family context from the events that are part of that context. There are multiple possible pathways by which CSA, family environment, and child mental health can be interrelated. Having only quasi-experimental retrospective data and the very blunt instrument of covariance analysis, Rind et al. (1998) emphasized only one of many possible interpretations—that family environment is a confound, the removal of which allows a “clean” analysis of the relationship between CSA and outcomes. Rind et al. did not describe other possibilities in handling the CSA–family environment relationship, such as that CSA can lead to more negative assessments of family environment. They took care to address concerns regarding the validity of their partialization procedure, but concluded that these concerns “do not appear to be problematic in the current review” (p. 43). We believe that this is an overstatement of the extent to which supporting data can mitigate the inherent weaknesses of partialization procedures when used with self-report, retrospective, quasi-experimental data, especially when environment and CSA are so thoroughly intertwined.

Presentation and Interpretation of Findings
In spite of these suggestions, we wish to reemphasize that our concerns regarding Rind et al. (1998) are not predicated solely or even primarily on their methodology and findings, which should be accorded the same blend of trust and skepticism as any other study. In our view, the primary flaw in the Rind et al. article is not the science that it used but its use of science. Through its emphasis on certain key points and its omission of others, the article could be interpreted as using science to inappropriately imply that key moral assumptions about CSA should be reconsidered. We take issue with the basis as well as with the logic and nature of these implications.

First, the foundation of their discussion is limited by how narrowly harm was defined in this study. For example, it is common and acceptable to study any one of many possible aspects of harm. Regarding CSA, this might include general psychological correlates such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD. It could also include school and learning (e.g., grades, days missed, learning disabilities), medical (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases, stress reactivity, injuries, pregnancies), characterological (e.g., borderline personality disorder); service utilization (e.g., time in therapy), revictimization-related (e.g., subsequent abuse, rape as an adult), behavioral (e.g., sexualized behavior, externalizing behavior), or substance-abuse outcomes. Both long- and short-term outcomes are perfectly appropriate for study. Rind et al. (1998) chose to study long-term (i.e., young adulthood) general psychological effects, a common and reasonable focus of study.

However, mental health symptoms alone, especially when measured years later, are only one aspect of harm and by no means a necessary or sufficient definition of harm. If proving the existence of harm at all requires the demonstration of effects (with or without intervention) lasting into young adulthood, it would seem that other clearly negative childhood experiences—for example, being beaten by an adult or having leukemia—might not qualify as harmful either. Moreover, harm does not require that the victim perceive the experience negatively. For example, the possibility that a child might learn from an abuser that such experiences are normal and positive is one of the most concerning possible outcomes of CSA.

Second, the effect sizes derived in the Rind et al. (1998) study must be considered in context. The effect sizes reported may seem small and are accurately described as small under Cohen's (1988) suggested definitions. For example, prior to covarying family environment, Rind et al. reported many effect sizes below .10, and values between .11 and .13 for relations between CSA and primary mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, paranoia, psychotic symptoms, and general adjustment. They noted that these relations are small, and that “CSA effects or correlates in the college population are not intense for any of the 18 meta-analyzed symptoms” (p. 32).

However, small effect sizes can reflect very important effects for many people and impact large numbers of people if a phenomenon is relatively common, as CSA appears to be. From a public health perspective, even miniscule effects can have huge personal and societal costs when one extrapolates to a societal level. For instance, the effects of aspirin in preventing heart attacks in one major study was only r = .03. Nonetheless, this meager effect size translated into nearly half as many heart attacks in the experimental group as in the placebo group (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989), an outcome of tremendous personal and financial significance. A similar example comes from a recent retrospective national survey of 4,000 adult women regarding rape in childhood and its mental health correlates (Saunders, Kilpatrick, Hanson, Resnick, & Walker, 1999). Using data from this study, we calculated the effect size of a reported history of child rape on current diagnosis of PTSD to be r = .12, similar to the mean value reported by Rind et al. (1998) before covarying family environment. However, women in the Saunders et al. study who reported experiencing child rape were over 4 times more likely to meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for current PTSD than those not reporting child rape (8.5% vs. 1.9%). Effect sizes do not convey clinical significance, and in this regard can be misleading.

A third interpretive concern is the authors' broad conclusions on the basis of findings from college samples. Regardless of the “similarity” (p. 27; this is not clarified further by Rind et al., 1998) in effect sizes between a meta-analysis of college samples and three meta-analyses of broader samples, findings from a college sample may not clearly generalize to the broader population. In addition to the obvious tendency of college samples to include higher functioning individuals, studies of this group can easily obscure effects on more vulnerable populations such as those at risk for psychopathology. If CSA is more harmful to certain subgroups, the more global analysis conducted by Rind et al. would obscure those effects.

Although some tempering comments are made, Rind et al. (1998) failed to highlight these and other caveats in discussing their data. For example, they did not point out that short-term harm following CSA is well documented and appears to be equivalent for boys and girls (Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993), that negative effects of CSA might occur and subside well before young adulthood, or that only some of many possible harmful outcomes were studied. They did not suggest that the data may have looked different if they had not collapsed on age at which the CSA occurred or that positive reactions to CSA may be related to age. They did not address alternative explanations for why college males might report childhood sexual experiences in positive terms (e.g., male socialization leading to an unwillingness to admit to being victimized, difficulty making negative attributions regarding an otherwise positive person, successful indoctrination by the abuser) or that positive reactions in that group are associated with older age at the time of the abuse (Doll et al., 1992). Neither did they highlight that CSA associated with lack of consent, force, or incest accounted for significantly more variance in outcomes, nor that even small effect sizes can translate into significant cumulative risk. They also did not note that most of the studies used in Tables 7 and 8 utilized particularly broad definitions of CSA that include sexual solicitation; this is important given evidence that boys and girls report equally negative reactions to and effects from CSA when CSA is more narrowly defined to include physical contact of a sexual nature (Haugaard & Emery, 1989).

Instead of appropriately qualifying their findings, Rind et al. (1998) emphasized aspects of their data that suggest CSA is not harmful, made allusions implying that CSA can be morally benign, and suggested that researchers should not characterize CSA as a negative phenomenon unless it is unwanted and produces long-term harm. Such a presentation appears to represent, at its core, an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA. For instance, their emphasis on adults' recollections and perceptions of whether CSA was wanted implies that perhaps children and adolescents can make informed decisions about having sex with an adult.

A second example of this advocacy for relaxed moral standards occurs where the authors draw parallels between society's current attitudes toward CSA (including use of the term abuse) and 19th century attitudes toward masturbation. The authors asserted that there is “a strong need for caution in scientific inquiries of sexual behaviors that remain taboo, with child sexual abuse being a prime example” (p. 45). The authors went on to note that adult–adolescent sex “has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall in the ‘normal’ range of human sexual behaviors” (p. 46). It is difficult to avoid interpreting this and other language in the article as meaning that first masturbation and soon CSA may be revealed as simply another “sexual behavior” that must shake itself free of outdated moral baggage. Making such a comparison without highlighting the extreme and obvious differences between masturbation and CSA is troublesome, especially when other caveats are also omitted.

Definition of CSA
A great deal of controversy has surrounded attempts to define CSA, and Rind et al.'s (1998) suggestions in this regard have proved particularly controversial; consequently, some exploration of definitional issues in CSA appears warranted. Rind et al. followed the above-critiqued presentation by questioning the basis on which CSA is defined in science. They wrote, “Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral … is problematic, because such a classification may obscure the true nature of the behavior and its actual causes and effects” (p. 45).

However, at issue for the majority of researchers is not whether sex with children should be considered abuse but rather the gray areas of how child should be defined and whether acts not involving contact (such as exhibitionism and exposure to pornography) should be included in the definition. A number of different definitions of CSA have been used in the published literature, with variations leading to great differences in prevalence estimates (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987; Wyatt & Peters, 1986). Holmes and Slapp (1998) listed some of the various requirements that investigators have included in their operational definitions of CSA: an age differential (typically 5 years), the use of coercion, a negative reaction on the part of the child, abuse perpetrated by an authority figure, and abuse involving physical contact or penetration. Such variations reflect attempts to approximate the basis on which acts are considered abuse. Rind et al.'s (1998) suggestion regarding the basis on which science should consider certain acts to be abusive, and our proposed alternative, are described below.

The empirical harm standard
Rind et al. (1998) argued that scientific clarity demands a definition based on empirical (evidence of harm) rather than legal or moral criteria. They stated, “In science, abuse implies that particular actions or inactions of an intentional nature are likely to cause harm to an individual” (p. 45). However, basing definitions of abuse on empirical evidence of resultant harm is problematic for several reasons. A primary reason is that such a definition equates abuse and harm in a tautological manner that overlooks the essential nature of abuse. If abuse is only what is harmful, then abuse as a concept ceases to be necessary; one need only speak of harmful behavior or child harm. The term abuse is used to specify acts that are “corrupt” or “improper” in nature (Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2000). A wide range of intentional and harmful, but not abusive, acts (e.g., surgery) would be wrongly classified if harmfulness was the only standard applied (Finkelhor, 1979). It is unclear why this key aspect of abuse was eschewed by Rind et al.; operational definitions should approximate the constructs they reflect as accurately as possible, rather than seek to alter the essential nature of those constructs.

Further, under the harm standard proposed by Rind et al. (1998), labeling behaviors as abuse requires scientific evidence that a significant number of previously abused adults are still affected many years later. The implications of such a requirement quickly become absurd. How big of an effect size, using what methodology, is necessary before sex with children becomes abuse under a long-term harm standard? Is it abuse if negative effects are present 5 years after the event, but not if they can be documented only 1 year after the event? Should rape be relabeled as “unilaterally consenting adult–adult sex” by scientists if many victims do not show mental health problems years later (covarying for other events in their lives)? A parent who administers crack cocaine to a 6-year-old may very well not cause long-term or even short-term harm. Under a harm standard, even a reprehensible act such as this would not qualify as abuse.

Abuse definitions that require empirical evidence of harm are also problematic in that the causation of harm cannot be proven experimentally. In this way, without randomly assigning children to abuse conditions (obviously impossible), the acceptance of a harm standard makes abuse nonexistent. Further problems arise given the inevitable limitations of available measures. Abusive acts could be classified as “nonabusive” simply because of the inability of available measures used to capture important sequelae.

The moral standard
Ultimately, we believe that child maltreatment in all forms—not just CSA—may best be determined sociologically through the consensus of a given society (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1991). The aforementioned problems arise because CSA is not and was never meant to be primarily a scientific construct. It is a moral and legal term, and as such its definition should have a sociological rather than an empirical foundation (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993). Finkelhor (1979) has argued cogently that the inability of children to provide full and informed consent is the proper basis on which sexual acts with children are appropriately described as abusive. Finkelhor clarified two preconditions to true consent: full knowledge regarding what is being consented to and absolute freedom to accept or decline.

We would argue that children are fundamentally incapable of meeting these preconditions. They cannot fully understand the ramifications of sexual acts, and they are never fully free to accept or decline when interacting with an adult. Clear agreement on this point is evident in the principles of the scientific and legal communities: Children are seen as incapable of free and informed consent to engage in research, enter into financial contracts, choose whether to be educated, accept or reject medical treatment, or engage in tobacco or alcohol use. These positions are not based on evidence of inevitable long-term harm or children's unwillingness to make these decisions for themselves but rather on societal beliefs that children lack the maturity to make major life decisions and need to be protected from those who would exploit their immaturity.

One possible criticism of this standard is the lack of clarity in a societal definition of abuse; it is true that gray areas will inevitably arise from such a definition. Setting an age of consent for behaviors as disparate as driving, voting, or having sexual relationships is by its nature arbitrary because same-age children will vary in their capacities. However, the abusiveness of the vast majority of sexual acts involving children is quite unambiguous from a societal perspective. For example, a survey of a representative community sample about parental behaviors found sexually abusive acts to be of more concern than all other forms of abuse (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). Further, operational definitions that approximate the larger construct of CSA without altering it (e.g., by including only “unwilling” encounters) are easily implemented (e.g., Wyatt, 1985).

A second possible criticism is that many nonsexual acts involving children (e.g., riding a roller coaster, being thrown in a pool) could be considered mildly abusive if unwanted and damaging, and benign if wanted and harmless. Thus, critics may argue, why is it that sexual activity with an adult cannot be held to the same standard? Ultimately, no amount of explaining why the vast majority of persons see sexual acts between adults and children as qualitatively different from other activities that children and adults engage in may ever be convincing to those holding the minority view.

A number of important and widely held values appear to converge to make CSA uniquely and consistently abusive—for example, that children cannot truly consent to sex (making all sexual acts with children coercive), that children should be protected from sexual experiences, that adults (especially parents and caregivers) should not use children for their own sexual gratification, that such acts are always done for the sexual gratification of the adult (despite the adult's protests of altruistic motives), and that such acts have clear potential for harm that cannot be predicted beforehand.

Value-neutral terminology
On the basis of their findings regarding harm and self-reported reactions, Rind et al. (1998) concluded that, “it is appropriate to reexamine the scientific validity of the construct of CSA as it has been generally conceptualized” (p. 45). They suggested renaming the construct with a value-neutral term such as adult–child sex, suggesting that the term abuse may obscure the behavior's “true nature” (46). Although the need for more consistent operational definitions is clear (and we agree with Rind et al. on this point), scientists studying a range of social behaviors—from rape to robbery to gangs—have not previously found a need to alter these value-laden terms. Although some may choose to use neutral terminology in research (e.g., fatal intentional injury rather than murder), such terms in and of themselves do nothing to advance the field; there is a difference between a euphemism and a precise definition. A stranger who provides a willing child with heroin may not cause short- or even long-term harm; further, that child could report the experience as positive and might grow to see heroin use as a normal and natural part of life. In our opinion, that adult's act would still be child endangerment, would still be corrupt, and could not be either profitably or appropriately labeled adult–child drug sharing.

Further, the use of value-neutral terminology may only be feasible when there is little risk that certain individuals might infer that widely condemned behaviors are acceptable. This is particularly true when a small but vigorous minority is actively seeking to justify illegal acts that contradict consensual public morality. For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse. This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors. Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification). The term adult–child sex lends itself to a set of values that are far more troublesome and disturbing than those Rind et al. sought to avoid.

Science and Morality
This leads to what may be the crux of the matter in understanding where Rind and colleagues (1998) went astray and ironically, is a point that the authors themselves highlighted briefly in their discussion: Science cannot provide answers to moral and legal questions. Science is a method for studying relations between observables, and is no more able to offer ultimate answers to questions regarding morality than it is able to address the purpose of life. Scientific research can inform moral issues (e.g., contributing to a new moral value that parents should place infants in car seats) but can never be the sole arbiter of them.

Similarly, philosophical beliefs and consensual values should never be used to make assumptions about relations between observables (e.g., CSA and long-term psychological harm). Society's moral stance on CSA, as with a wide range of other actions involving children (e.g., child labor, child management of large sums of money), is appropriately based only in part on the potential for harm (which is quite clear, in Rind et al., 1998, and elsewhere). The negative response to Rind et al. among the public and many scientists is thus something very different from an attempt to censor unpopular data. It is instead a rejection of the way that those data are used to make implications in a sphere in which they have no authority.

In urging the abandonment of terminology implying moral judgment, in comparing taboos against CSA now to those against masturbation previously, in their failure to fully qualify their findings, in their emphasis on certain aspects of their data, and in their reminder that other societies have endorsed adult–adolescent sex, Rind et al. (1998) appeared to make a crucial extrascientific assertion—that data suggesting a certain relation between CSA and functioning in young adulthood allow one to question moral judgments regarding CSA. We suspect that the authors themselves would contest that they made this assertion. In fact, they acknowledged that “lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness,” (p. 41) and went on to say the findings “do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered” (p. 47). However, these caveats appear insufficient in balancing the overall presentation, a suggestion that is supported by the strong public reaction to the article.

Scientific Responsibility and Scientific Freedom
One result of scientific endeavors is that deeply held assumptions can be shown to be incomplete or even false. Scientific progress has often come about when what was once thought to be true was proven not to be and new ways of understanding the natural world or human behavior evolved. We share the concern of many that the controversy surrounding Rind et al. (1998) might discourage others from publishing unpopular but scientifically sound findings. A more insidious problem would be if researchers were deterred from examining complicated issues for fear that they would not be funded or published. For example, we believe it is a legitimate scientific question whether there are differential impacts of CSA experiences by gender or age, or when adolescents perceive themselves to have consented. It is unlikely that researchers would pursue this line of inquiry without trepidation in the current political climate.

In part through their willingness to question assumptions, we believe that Rind et al. (1998) have made contributions to the understanding of CSA (although we would interpret the findings differently). This is true most notably in their study of differences between men's and women's experiences of and responses to CSA, in the variability in outcome based on perceived consent, and in the resilience of many persons to sexual abuse in childhood. It is true that some have overstated the deleterious nature of CSA, and that this misinformation may have contributed to the distress of victims and their families. The fact that many CSA victims may be resilient and not doomed to long-term psychopathology or a stunted life is an important point of optimism that can contribute to the health and remediation of many.

Despite concerns with scientific freedom, we believe that the controversy over the Rind et al. (1998) article highlights the wisdom of the APA's recent assertion that social policy implications should be considered in the peer review process. This is especially true when conclusions pertain to sensitive topics of great public importance and enormous potential misuse. Considering public reactions, social policy implications, and the extent to which our own personal political, sexual, or philosophical views influence our work in no way implies that controversial data cannot or should not be published simply because they might be unpopular; neither, in our view, does it limit scientific freedom in any way. Unpopular data should never be cause for editorial concern; the inappropriate use of data for political or other extrascientific purposes should be.

Conclusions
Why have Rind et al. (1998) engendered such furor? First, perhaps, is the way that the presentation of their findings lends itself to implications that conflict with consensual public morality. The public often acutely reads between the lines of social science research, focusing not only on the data but also on the underlying biases or value positions that the authors appear to espouse. A second possible reason is the mistaken assumption by many that publication in an APA journal implies endorsement by the APA, rather than just the opinion of the authors. The Rind et al. article has at times been mistakenly viewed by the public as more of an official policy statement than a submission to an open, though refereed, forum. It appears that large segments of the public became deeply concerned when they concluded that psychology, as a unified scientific society, was attacking an important and deeply held value—specifically, that when adults engage in sex with children, it is abuse.

Science can never be completely divorced from personal bias and the sociohistorical context in which it is conducted. However, scientists as well as journal editors have a responsibility to strive for objectivity. When by omitting appropriate qualifying information or making extrascientific implications we advocate for our own moral, religious, sexual, or political views, we are held accountable. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 1992) is clear on this point: “Psychologists do not participate in activities in which it appears likely that their skills or data will be misused by others. … If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation” (Ethical Standard 1.16), and “they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence” (Ethical Standard 1.15). The existence, organization, and fervor of groups seeking to normalize CSA (e.g., NAMBLA) make this latter standard particularly relevant. Like everyone else, scientists should be free to offer their opinions, speculations, and interpretations, and there are many appropriate avenues for doing so. Because data-based research articles may be perceived as uniquely authoritative, it is best to guard carefully against personal interpretations that could potentially cause the data to be misused.

The need for more and better research is clear. Far too much of the current literature regarding CSA is riddled with methodological problems, involves inadequately specified and overly broad definitions, and implies stronger links between CSA and harm than may actually exist. Further study is needed of the personal, familial, and environmental risk factors that surround CSA, and also of the reliability of adult retrospective recall of CSA (Finkelhor, 1998). We also urge for a focus on resiliency and protective factors, for an emphasis on understanding CSA-related harm rather than on proving that harm, and for more prospective rather than retrospective research (e.g., Egeland, 1997; Heim et al., 2000; Widom, Weiler, & Cottler, 1999).

Researchers and practitioners should take lessons from this controversy before it slips from the public eye. Many of us on all sides of issues such as this have been guilty of editorializing on explosive topics and going beyond the data in scientific articles. When we do so, we offer up science to be co-opted by groups whose main use for research is not to inform but to support predetermined advocacy positions. Both credibility and progress are jeopardized when scientific efforts are revealed as advocacy rather than a process for refining knowledge. Researchers should be clear—in their own minds as well as in their writing—about where their data end and their values enter in.

Footnotes
1 The APA's statement regarding child sexual abuse and two APA Monitor on Psychology articles describing APA's response to this controversy can be found at the APA Web site, http://www.apa.org.

References
1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

2. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

3. Barnett, D., Manly, J. T. & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Continuing toward an operational definition of psychological maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 19-29.

4. Barnett, D., Manly, J. T. & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment: The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child development, and social policy (pp. 7–73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

5. Beckett, K. (1996). Culture and the politics of signification: The case of child sexual abuse. Social Problems, 43, 57-76.

6. Briere, J. & Elliott, D. M. (1993). Sexual abuse, family environment, and psychological symptoms: On the validity of statistical control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 284-288.

7. Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F. A. (1997). The role of self-organization in the promotion of resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 797-815.

8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

9. Dallam, S., Gleaves, D., Cepeda-Benito, A., Silberg, J. L., Kraemer, H. C. & Spiegel, D. (2001). The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 715-733.

10. Doll, L. S., Joy, D., Bartholow, B. N., Harrison, J. S., Bolan, G. B., Douglas, J. M., Saltzman, L. E., Moos, P. M. & Delgado, W. (1992). Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 855-864.

11. Egeland, B. (1997). Mediators of the effects of child maltreatment on developmental adaptation in adolescence. In D. Cicchetti & S. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychology: Vol. 8. Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 403–434). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

12. Finkelhor, D. (1979). What's wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problem of sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 692-697.

13. Finkelhor, D. (1998). Improving research, policy, and practice to understand child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1864-1865.

14. Fromuth, M. E. (1986). The relationship of childhood sexual abuse with later psychological and sexual adjustment in a sample of college women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 5-15.

15. Fromuth, M. E. & Burkhart, B. R. (1987). Childhood sexual victimization among college men: Definitional and methodological issues. Violence and Victims, 2, 241-253.

16. Garbarino, J. & Eckenrode, J. (1997). The meaning of maltreatment. In J. Garbarino & J. Eckenrode (Eds.), Understanding abusive families: An ecological approach to theory and practice (pp. 3–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17. Giovannoni, J. M. & Becerra, R. M. (1979). Defining child abuse. New York: Free Press.

18. Haugaard, J. J. & Emery, R. E. (1989). Methodological issues in child sexual abuse research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 89-100.

19. Heim, C., Newport, D. J., Heit, S., Graham, Y. P., Wilcox, M., Bonsall, R., Miller, A. H. & Nemeroff, C. B. (2000). Pituitary–adrenal and autonomic responses to stress in women after sexual and physical abuse in childhood. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 592-597.

20. Holmes, W. C. & Slapp, G. B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1855-1862.

21. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M. & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164-180.

22. Landis, J. (1956). Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual deviation. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 30, 91-109.

23. Letourneau, E. J. & Lewis, T. C. (1999). The portrayal of child sexual assault in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 253-258.

24. Masson, J. M. (1984). The assault on truth: Freud's suppression of the seduction theory. New York: Penguin Books.

25. Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2000). WWWebster dictionary [Online]. Available from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

26. Myers, J. E. B., Diedrich, S., Lee, D., Fincher, K. M. & Stern, R. (1999). Professional writing on child sexual abuse from 1900 to 1975: Dominant themes and impact on prosecution. Child Maltreatment, 4, 201-216.

27. Olafson, E., Corwin, D. L. & Summit, R. C. (1993). Modern history of child sexual abuse awareness: Cycles of discovery and suppression. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 7-24.

28. Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53.

29. Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276-1284.

30. Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S. & Walker, M. E. (1999). Prevalence, case characteristics, and long-term psychological correlates of child rape among women: A national survey. Child Maltreatment, 4, 187-200.

31. Spiegel, D. (2000). Suffer the children: Long-term effects of sexual abuse. Society, 37, 18-20.

32. Widom, C. S., Weiler, B. L. & Cottler, L. B. (1999). Childhood victimization and drug abuse: A comparison of prospective and retrospective findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 867-880.

33. Wyatt, G. E. (1985). The sexual abuse of Afro-American and White American women in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9, 507-519.

34. Wyatt, G. E. & Peters, S. D. (1986). Issues in the definition of child sexual abuse in prevalence research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 231-240.

Received: December 1, 1999 Revised: August 4, 2000 Accepted: August 11, 2000

But where is the A, B, or C? I'm well aware of the "ors" in A B and C but what about the ones inbetween A, B, and C.

You don't feel you meet A and C, and if acted on, would also meet B?

Speculative. No research done.

... That would be you commenting out of your ignorance of my RL career, which I have pursued for the last 30 years.

Specualative no research has been done. Most likely bull crap.


... That also would be you commenting out of your ignorance of my RL career, which I have pursued for the last 30 years.

I don't think they are "evil". They just have a mental disorder. It's not their fault.

Really?

Try this:
Sex With Children Is Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)

**Herculean Snip**



Nerv, you are the mac, stacked, true-dat, king-of-em-all, y'all for keeping at this guy, and I'm in your cheering section with nachos.

However, if he won't read the link, he's not going to read all of that.

Really?

Try this:
Sex With Children Is Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
By: Steven J. Ondersma
Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University
Mark Chaffin
Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Lucy Berliner
Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress, University of Washington
Ingrid Cordon
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Gail S. Goodman
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Douglas Barnett
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
Acknowledgment:
This article is a revised and extended version of a commentary previously published in the newsletter of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children and was sponsored, in part, by the Section on Child Maltreatment of Division 37 (Child, Youth, and Family Services) of the American Psychological Association.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Steven J. Ondersma, Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University, 71 East Ferry Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. Electronic mail may be sent to: s.ondersma@wayne.edu

<snipped with regrets for net protocol>


NERVUN, you've done a public service to this thread. Thank you. Too bad Saint Curie is probably right; but even if DSN reads or has read this article, I fear he is most likely to dismiss it.

NERVUN, you've done a public service to this thread. Thank you. Too bad Saint Curie is probably right; but even if DSN reads or has read this article, I fear he is most likely to dismiss it.

Yeah. I gotta admire that Nervun is putting in real work to make his point.

It'd be easy to just dismiss DSN as either vile or irreparably sick, then spit and walk, but Nervun is making a well-supported argument to boot.

Nerv, you are the mac, stacked, true-dat, king-of-em-all, y'all for keeping at this guy, and I'm in your cheering section with nachos.
Yea! Nachos! :D

However, if he won't read the link, he's not going to read all of that.

NERVUN, you've done a public service to this thread. Thank you. Too bad Saint Curie is probably right; but even if DSN reads or has read this article, I fear he is most likely to dismiss it.
Thank you both. And yes, I KNOW he will dismiss it. His silence is either trying to find something to rebut me, or maybe we have finally driven him off (I wouldn't bet on it though). While I am aware that he will most likely dismiss this out of hand, posting the article directly challenges his argument for using Rind. His posts have stated that the attacks againt Rind were from the religious right and Congress, which is true as far as it goes. However, posting an academic article directly challenges his theory that this is just a case of over religious morality and that Rind was 100% correct, with no problems what-so-ever.

Besides, the next group of folks who argue against DSN will be able to draw upon the same text. I gotta sleep sometime after all. ;)

Yeah. I gotta admire that Nervun is putting in real work to make his point.

It'd be easy to just dismiss DSN as either vile or irreparably sick, then spit and walk, but Nervun is making a well-supported argument to boot.
Spiting and walking doesn't acomplish anything and leaves DSN free to construct more excuses. It also plays into his feelings as a persucuted minority. Challenging him intellectually shows his position for what it is.

...
Spiting and walking doesn't acomplish anything and leaves DSN free to construct more excuses. It also plays into his feelings as a persucuted minority. Challenging him intellectually shows his position for what it is.


The thing that is most serious to me is that his posts seem to indicate that he is not ready to do anything other than rationalize the situation. Who knows? Perhaps if he feels he can hold his own in a debate, he'll tell himself that if he can argue his case strongly enough, it's proof that his sexual orientation towards little girls isn't wrong.

It's an unfortunate characteristic that appears not infrequently in people who feel the urge to justify the unjustifiable. Sex abusers use arguments like his to "prove" that what they do isn't abuse, just as alcoholics try to argue that they aren't really out of control. Seeing the way DSN has replied to all responses to his arguments, I'm inclined to think he just wanted a forum on which to assert the rationalizations he uses to defend his paedophilic inclinations.

In such a case, it's a waste of time discussing it with him. I don't believe he wants help; I believe he wants social validation of socially reprehensible behaviour.

I suppose it may help others who want to know more about paedophilia, and it may help victims of CSA who need affirmation and support. But OTOH how many people would come to a thread like this either for information or for post-abuse support? Very few, I would have thought. So what are we doing here other than indulging that aspect of his paedophilia which is narcissistic? Still, I guess it's a service to the public not to leave his delusion unchallenged.

The thing that is most serious to me is that his posts seem to indicate that he is not ready to do anything other than rationalize the situation. Who knows? Perhaps if he feels he can hold his own in a debate, he'll tell himself that if he can argue his case strongly enough, it's proof that his sexual orientation towards little girls isn't wrong.

It's an unfortunate characteristic that appears not infrequently in people who feel the urge to justify the unjustifiable. Sex abusers use arguments like his to "prove" that what they do isn't abuse, just as alcoholics try to argue that they aren't really out of control. Seeing the way DSN has replied to all responses to his arguments, I'm inclined to think he just wanted a forum on which to assert the rationalizations he uses to defend his paedophilic inclinations.

In such a case, it's a waste of time discussing it with him. I don't believe he wants help; I believe he wants social validation of socially reprehensible behaviour.

I suppose it may help others who want to know more about paedophilia, and it may help victims of CSA who need affirmation and support. But OTOH how many people would come to a thread like this either for information or for post-abuse support? Very few, I would have thought. So what are we doing here other than indulging that aspect of his paedophilia which is narcissistic? Still, I guess it's a service to the public not to leave his delusion unchallenged.

It has helped me ... I am one of those abuse survivors.

I have withheld commenting thus for for a variety of reasons
1)I was interested in the debate at hand and it seemed to be carrying on without me
2)I was not sure that I could make a rational debate having survived this and what its done to me I could not adequately control my emotions for true debate without just yelling at DSN and making it too personally

But I have been reading and I have found a wealth of information

I know the effect that this all has had on me personally ... and it was not pleasant. Years of therapy and I still sometimes suffer from further flashbacks. Also things like sexual mood swings from hyper sexual to completely shutoff. Problems with intimacy (either clinging too hard or not at all) and all the other fun stuff that comes with abuse.

It is nice to see the wealth of info that everyone has posted (All sides ... even though I think some of it is pretty flawed as a statistician(Well stats minor lol))

Anyways there are some of us that are out here ... reading
All your arguments are not for naught.

I have a 15 cent solution for pedophilia. A .40 to the back of the head.

NERVUN, you are a credit to all reasonable, thinking people on NS, and all academics. To find and put together those links to show this person, and to go to such lengths speaks volumes for your academic crediblity and character.

Congratulations!

I have a 15 cent solution for pedophilia. A .40 to the back of the head.

That's just going down to their level. They need help and lengthy prison times, not something so...barbaric.

honestly doubt you would know the detailed sex lives of ten women.

I was actually using the number ten becaue I have ten very good friends with whom I talk openly on all aspects, including sex and our attitudes and feelings, what we enjoy, what we don't etc etc. I know a great deal about these women and that is the reason why I put it.

As to the other things raised by you, No, I wasn't crying. No, it's not that I WON'T let it go, it's that it won't go away, even when I think it has. I am not looking for sympathy, I can see no purpose to it and don't need it, nobody has expressed any to me and I don't require it thank you. Maybe I did not put things in a clear and concise manner, but I honestly dont think it would have made a bit of difference even if I had, you are not looking for proof that what you believe is wrong, and even if I had the method to prove it to you with no possible dispute on any part, you would still not choose to accept it. NERVUN has taken a great deal of time to source and provide detailed explanations and at no time reduced to insult and witch hunting, your favorite term.

NERVUN, I am honoured to have seen your arguments and intelect, you are clearly a good person who has taken the time to try to show this person the error of their thinking.

Dark Shadowy Nexus, you are a pathetic little human being. I hope that you have not damaged anyone with your sickness and that you stay away from all children for the rest of your miserable life. You never did tell us if your Mother is proud of you, or if your family and friends know that you find toddlers toilet habits sexually thrilling.

It has helped me ... I am one of those abuse survivors.

I have withheld commenting thus for for a variety of reasons
1)I was interested in the debate at hand and it seemed to be carrying on without me
2)I was not sure that I could make a rational debate having survived this and what its done to me I could not adequately control my emotions for true debate without just yelling at DSN and making it too personally

But I have been reading and I have found a wealth of information

I know the effect that this all has had on me personally ... and it was not pleasant. Years of therapy and I still sometimes suffer from further flashbacks. Also things like sexual mood swings from hyper sexual to completely shutoff. Problems with intimacy (either clinging too hard or not at all) and all the other fun stuff that comes with abuse.

It is nice to see the wealth of info that everyone has posted (All sides ... even though I think some of it is pretty flawed as a statistician(Well stats minor lol))

Anyways there are some of us that are out here ... reading
All your arguments are not for naught.


Thanks for that, Upward Thrust. It's good to hear it's useful to someone. You have my respect for surviving what you've been through. And you don't owe this thread anything, so I'm glad you've gotten something out of it.

You know what, DSN?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/data.jpg

Really?

Try this:


I will come back to post 305 in a day or two as it is a lot to cover.

Thanks for the copy paste of the information you find relivent.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]It has helped me ... I am one of those abuse survivors.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]I have withheld commenting thus for for a variety of reasons

2)I was not sure that I could make a rational debate having survived this and what its done to me I could not adequately control my emotions for true debate without just yelling at DSN and making it too personally

^ What he said.

...having an orientation is unavoidable.



Actually, it's not. http://www.stopitnow.org and http://www.stopitnow.org.uk

In all my life I've never been so angry that the bile rose in the back of my throat until I read this thread. I've been working for months trying to get this account working specifically to deal with this thread.

Where to begin?

Let's start with my most significant gripe, and get it out of the way.

Dark Shadowy Nexus, your confrontational, irrational, hedonistic, and quite frankly amoral manner here is giving pedophiles like me a bad name.

There. That felt good. Now on to the meat of the post.

I think I'll tackle Rind now. I know it's been done, but I don't think the last thread here got the point across. Rind wasn't about how sexual acts with minors isn't harmful. Anyone who got that out of Rind was only looking for justification. If you actually read the study, the paper advances no such claim at all.

The point Rind was making was about minimising the trauma of the psychiatric process for the victums of childhood sexual abbuse. It makes sense, from that point of view, that sometimes it's best not to try to confront dificult, psychological trauma during formative years when a person may already have established an effective coping mechanism. The Rind study had no evidence to support the ludicrous claim that sex with minors is sometimes "okay". The author suggested that as a possibility, only in the spirit of including all potential possibilities, and not because he had any evidence to back it up.

The reaction from people like you, DSN, is what made it more dificult for this study, which could have potentially led to improving the treatment of CSA abuse, to be widely discredited and to set back any possibility of real research on the psychological cause and effect of the trauma of childhood sexual abbuse another decade or more.

I've actually read Rind, and the way you misconstrue the study is criminal. (The crime in question would be libel.)

On to the collective posts of the genre, "die, Pedo, die!" I think you are reacting out of intense emotion and societal pressure rather than rational thought. Note, I'm not saying this of those people who's posts have actually been thought out, only those drive by posters I mentioned.

Moving on to those of you who were the victums of rape as a child.

You have my sincerest sympathies, however, I do wish you wouldn't paint with such a broad brush. From what I've read here, what has been done to you would be classified as rape by any standard, statutory or not.

People exist who put their own sexual gratification above everything else. They exist in any sexuality. It's just that it's easier for people with otherwise normal prefferences to sate their desires without entering criminal territory. Not every heterosexual male is a rapist because some of them rape women.

As such, I would please ask that you understand that not every pedophile is a rapist because of what happened to you. I understand that sexual abuse makes trust a dificult thing, and society being what it is, you would have likely had trouble trusting me regardless of your experience.

What else was there? My this was a huge thread.

I think I'll move on to my false friends. The ones who with one hand say I shouldn't be judged, and with the other propose that I be locked away. You make me almost as sick as DSN does. Either I'm deserving of punishment for thought crime, or I'm not. Either my very existence is a danger to society, or it isn't. Get off the damn fence. Since I clearly need either to be locked away, or to have a lifetime of counciling (and maybe an identifying tatoo on my forehead so parents can flee at the sight of me), I'm going to assume that any pretext of sympathy or tollerance is insincere.

Now, for those of you who are still stuck on the idea that sexual prefference is volentary, I ask you two questions:

1) Who in their right mind would chose to be a pedophile? It's not like it's exactly glorified in the media or anything. Having that prefference known and walking the streets is a good way to get beaten to death, or as one poster so eloquently put it, "tazered in the balls repeatedly". What do you think the appeal is?

2) Could you make that choice? After all, if it's a choice, you must feel that you aren't this way only because you chose not to be. I challenge you to chose to be gay for a day (since that experiment would be less harmful than trying to be a pedophile). It can't be done.

Now, I think I'll deal with the idea that celebacy is an intrinsicly unatainable goal for a pedophile. I challenge anyone here to tell me that if they couldn't get consentual sex, that they'd honestly resort to rape. Are you all so incredibly weak willed that you'd rape someone just because you were horny and no one was putting out? If so, I have to question why I'm bothering justifying myself to you.

What else have we got?

Oh yeah, the witch hunt. Yes, the taboo around this subject is currently at a level that does more harm than good. The fear of discovery forces even those that recognise that they're slipping to try to deal with things on their own rather than seeking professional help.

Sure, DSN's suggestion of an organised anti-pedophile movement are compeltely irrational, but the sentiment is such that even mere accusation of feeling such urges is enough to ruin your life forever. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.

Now, I suppose is the time for full disclosure followed by final words.

Yes, I'm a pedophile. No, I've never acted on that impulse, and never intend to. The area of attraction is girls (yep, I'm a straight guy) ages 0-10. The attraction is non-exclusive, meaning that I can be, and am, attracted to adults as well (makes things a little easier on me).

There's been a lot of irrationality on both sides of the arguement in this thread. DSN is not the only one guilty of this, and it pisses me off that so few people are able to discuss the subject rationally, if not calmly.

I'd like to thank NERVUN for posting that response to Rind. It was an interesting read. I'd also like to thank those few of you who have posted in a well thought out, and consistent manner. Given the subject matter, your restraint is to be commended.

I'll close by saying again that DSN has been a terrible ambasador, and in no way do his views reflect my own.

My views are as follows:

I see no harm in engaging in sexual fantasy of this type, since any consequences are limited to the confines of my own mind. The idea that someone else has a right to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own mind is offensive to me.

I do not believe actually engaging in sexual activities with prepubescents can be morally justifiable for several reasons:

First, there is a real possibility of physical harm and developmental problems as a result. Cervical cancer has been noted as having an elevated rate in girls who were sexually active before puberty. I am not sure that the studies which noted this were completely accurate, and am not certain if there might be precautions which might reduce or eliminate such potential consequences. Ultimately, I don't think nearly enough research has been done to be conclusive either way, and I am inclined to err on the side of caution.

Second, there is a real possibility of significant and lasting psychological harm resulting directly and exclusively from early sex. Again, I don't think enough research has been done to be conclusive one way or the other, but the potential for harm is not something to be ignored.

Third, conscent in any decision cannot be given in abscence of the ability to fully understand the consequences of that decision. Cognitive science tells us for certain that some members of the group I am attracted to are not psychologically capable of understanding cause and effect, so conscent in those cases if a definate impossibility. In those people not absolutely excluded by cognitave science, there is uncertainty whether they are sufficiently developed psychologically to fully understand the consequences of sexual activity. Again, I must err on the side of caution.

Fourth, even in the abscence of direct physical or psychological harm resulting from the act itself, societal condemnation after the fact would be certain ot produce trauma. The social stygma attached to a pedophile "rubs off" on those he/she molests. That kind of social condemnation can create as much trauma as an actual rape, and I would not want to put someone I cared about (in my opinion a prerequisite for a sexual relationship) through that.

Fifth, I actually have what would be called "old fassioned" ideas about sex. I feel that it should only take place between married individuals (or in a similarly permanent and binding commited relationship). While I don't tell others what to do in their sex lives, I intend for mine to follow that ideal

Waiting for months? You joined March 2006 and have two whole posts. Maybe you're DSN making a comeback in hopes not to be loathed so much.

Waiting for months? You joined March 2006 and have two whole posts. Maybe you're DSN making a comeback in hopes not to be loathed so much.
I may be wrong of course, but the writing seems different.

Great post, The Five Castes . It's nice to see a smart person not falling to easy hatred. I agree with you on everything (except the "no sex outside marriage" part, but that's a personal pov, and I'm not even that far, since it's "no sex outside serious relationship" for me ;) ).

I'm a "ped"ophile!
*thinks thread is about GoPeds, then realizes it not*
Ohh never mind.

Waiting for months? You joined March 2006 and have two whole posts.

Let me explain. I first attempted to register to the forums directly. I registered but couldn't post. It was only later that it was explained to me after PMing a moderator and talking to a friend on another forum that you have to create a nation to post here.

Then I created this account, but still, for some unknown reason couldn't post. For a while I tried contacting administrators and basicly tried to wait out the problem. Then, a couple of days ago, I got a telegram letting me know that the problem had been solved. The only post I've made outside this particular thread so far is one in the technical forum thanking the administrator for helping me get this problem (whatever it was) sorted out.

That's why my post count is so low compared to my joined date.

Maybe you're DSN making a comeback in hopes not to be loathed so much.
Did DSN go somewhere during the time I've been trying to log on? I've been trying to keep up with this arguement through the several threads it's gone through, but did I miss something? Did he finally manage to get himself banned over that "logical reality" link?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't DSN want to be loathed? I mean he made an entire thread about how being hated made him feel validated.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you I'm not DSN if you don't want to believe me. I can tell you I'm not, but if you didn't believe me when I said this:
Dark Shadowy Nexus, your confrontational, irrational, hedonistic, and quite frankly amoral manner here is giving pedophiles like me a bad name.
I don't see why you'd believe me about saying I'm not DSN.

Five Castes, I'm locking this thread because it's gravedigging and we don't really need to revisit this subject again.