[Cool Teen Sites]
Children Can Commit to Sex with Adults -- And its Healthy
Wednesday May 12, 10:01 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: Family Research Council
Coalition Calls on APA to Renounce Pedophilia Study in APA Journal
'For Our Children's Sake, the APA Must Stop Backpedaling and Publicly
Condemn The Pedophile Study,' FRC's Janet Parshall Says
WASHINGTON, May 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Can children actually consent to sex with adults?
According to a recent study published in the American Psychological Association's premier
publication, they can and with effects that might actually be positive for ``willing''
children. On
Wednesday, a coalition of psychotherapists, talk radio show hosts, members of Congress,
child
protection advocates, pedophilia victims, and public policy groups gathered to call on the
American
Psychological Association (APA) to renounce the study on pedophilia that suggests sexual
relationships between adults and children are less harmful than believed.
``Because the study was published in its most prestigious, professional journal (The
Bulletin), the
APA has given unwarranted or unintended credibility to this severely flawed study,''
Family
Research Council's National Advocate Janet Parshall said Wednesday. ``As an organization
representing and defending America's families, we believe it is necessary to condemn and
reject, in
the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and
adults are
anything but abusive, destructive, exploitative, reprehensible, and punishable by law.''
Among the
coalition joining Janet Parshall were radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger (via
satellite),
Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL),
and representatives of national child protection groups such as ChildHelp USA and the
National
Law Center for Children and Families.
In response to public outrage, the APA drafted a letter to the U.S. House of
Representatives, dated
April 19, 1999, claiming their publication of the study in no way ``constitutes an
endorsement of its
findings by the Association,'' but they haven't criticized the study either. At the news
conference,
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) announced he would introduce a congressional resolution condemning
the study.
``This study gives pedophiles a green flag,'' Parshall said. Though the APA warns against
inferring
``endorsement,'' NAMBLA, The North American Man-Boy Love Association, which advocates
laws to permit sex between adults and ``consenting'' children, hailed the study on its Web
site, until
recently, as ``good news.'' They now reference the study under the heading, ``Positive and
Beneficial Experiences.'' Pedophiles, including organizations such as NAMBLA, could use
the study
to deny that ``consensual'' sex with a child is ``child sex abuse.'' In addition, one of
the authors of
the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D., has also published in Paidika -- The Journal of
Pedophilia, a
periodical from the Netherlands advocating the legalization of sex with ``willing''
children.
The groups also called on the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychoanalytic
Association, meeting in Washington, D.C. this week, to repudiate the study.
SOURCE: Family Research Council
SOURCE: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990512/dc_frc_apa_1.html
RESPONSE:
Thursday May 20, 7:00 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: Family Research Council
FRC Responds to Criticism by
American Psychological Association
and Authors of Child Sexual Abuse
Study
WASHINGTON, May 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council (FRC) released the
following statement Thursday in response to a statement made on May 12 by the authors of a
recent
child sexual abuse study, ``A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child
Sexual
Abuse Using College Samples,'' published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
The
authors' statement, which was printed on APA letterhead, criticized FRC's position on the
study. It
was released by the APA in light of a press conference addressing the study that FRC was
to hold
that day. FRC's statement follows:
Unfortunately, the response of the authors to criticisms of their study, ``A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,'' serves
only to
further obfuscate the issue of whether they condone sex between an adult and a child or an
adolescent if the minor gives ``informed consent.'' But the study itself admits that
attitudes towards
child sexual abuse (CSA) are indeed informed by the belief in its intrinsic harmfulness:
``Beliefs
about CSA in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a
powerfully
negative force that (a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who
experience it
will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have
an
equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls'' [p.46].
The authors began their study by stating their alleged aim. ``Our goal was to address the
question: In
the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience
cause
intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?'' [p.22]. One need not
go
beyond the title to realize that the purported goal is an utter sham. Their study is based
on ``college
samples'' and not the population at large. Alfred C. Kinsey's discredited study produced
the
skewed results he wanted in much the same way.
Why is it that one of the authors, Robert Bauserman, who cites his writings several times
in this
study, fails to mention his article, ``Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural
Perspective,''
published in Paidika, the Journal of Pedophilia? [See Paidika web site, Issue 5.] Nor does
he
mention his article in Vol. 20 of the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he defends Theo
Sandfort's
Research on ``Man-Boy Sexual Relations.'' His introduction states: ``It is argued that
moral
condemnation of such relationships, combined with a prevailing ideology of boy 'victims'
and adult
'perpetrators,' results in efforts by Sandfort's critics to attack and discredit his
research rather than
evaluate it objectively.''
Methodological problems in the APA ``meta-analysis'' abound. First: Of the 59 studies
included in
the analysis, over 60% of the data are drawn from one single study done over 40 years ago.
Twenty-three of the ``usable studies'' are ``unpublished'' [p. 27]. These authors
purposely excluded
from their review any studies that were based totally or largely on ``clinical'' or
``legal'' sample cases
of child sexual abuse. Their reason: Clinical patients ``are more likely than nonclinical
participants to
recall events that can be classified as CSA [child sexual abuse], thus inflating the
CSA-maladjustment relationship. ...Legal samples are also likely to contain the more
serious cases,
limiting their generalizability.'' ``College samples were used for several reasons. First,
this population
provides the largest group of studies on nonclinical populations, which are essential for
understanding CSA in the general population.'' Thus, even though, as the authors admit,
``about
50% of U.S. adults have some college exposure,'' they used studies that excluded half of
the adult
population because they wanted only ``nonclinical'' studies [pp. 24-26]. In other words,
they didn't
include the most serious cases of child sexual abuse in their study.
Second: According to the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media,
headed by
Dr. Paul J. Fink, which has analyzed the study, the authors loaded their analysis with
data involving
primarily mild adult-child interactions involving little or no physical contact. Rather
than focusing on
child sexual abuse, the 1956 study on which they largely relied asked about college
students' sexual
encounters during childhood and adolescence, usually in public places. These were
primarily
noncontact encounters, from which one would expect to find less permanent harm. The
studies also
included sexual experiences of children by themselves, with another child, and with an
adolescent.
Dr. Paul Fink, Past President of the American Psychiatric Association, told Dr. Laura
Schlessinger,
``It is as if a study that purports to examine the effects of being shot in the head
contained a majority
of cases in which the marksman missed. Such research might demonstrate that being shot in
the
head generally has no serious or lasting effects!''
Third: The authors have recommended a redefinition of ``child sexual abuse'' for
scientific purposes.
If it was ``a willing encounter'' between ``a child and an adult'' or ``an adolescent and
adult'' with
``positive reactions'' on the part of the child or adolescent, it would no longer be
called ``child
sexual abuse.'' It would be labeled scientifically as ``adult-child sex,'' or
``adult-adolescent sex.'' The
authors want society to use a ``value-neutral term.'' The authors claim that ``lasting
negative effects
of [child sex abuse] were not pervasive among [sexually abused] students,'' especially
males.
Furthermore, in the last sentence of their study they reveal their intent regarding moral
and legal
definitions: ``The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the
extent that
these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.'' By clear
implication, if the
negative effects of adult-child sex could be lessened, this should be followed by a
lessening of
societal approbation of sexual relations between adults and children or adolescents. And
this is
exactly what the study attempts to do by asserting that ``CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable
outcome
or set of emotional reactions'' [p. 46]. Indeed, are we really to believe -- as the
authors assert --
that such relations between adults and children or adolescents may be properly
characterized as
``willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions''? It doesn't take a
psychologist to
understand the horrendous ramifications to sexually abused children if the presumption of
psychological harm becomes an element that must be proven in a criminal case in order to
convict a
molester.
Fourth: It is a travesty for the authors to attempt to distinguish between ``consent'' and
``informed
consent.'' The response serves only to further obfuscate the issue of whether they condone
sex
between an adult and a child or an adolescent if the minor gives ``informed consent.''
Neither law,
science, ethics, nor morals recognizes any consent other than ``informed consent'' -- that
which is
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. No psychologist in his or her right mind would ever
perform any
study or experiment on any individual without making certain in writing that they had such
consent.
However, the authors made no such attempt to clarify any distinctions about ``consent'' in
their
study.
Furthermore, they have acknowledged in their response why our criticism is valid and why
their
study is seriously flawed. Our position and their admission is that: ``In an ethical and
legal
perspective, consent means informed consent which implies a certain level of knowledge and
life
experience. We neither stated nor implied that children can give informed consent to such
experiences.'' That is why the authors' premise and the basis for the conclusions in their
study, that
the children in the studies ``consented'' or were ``willing'' participants in adult-child
sex must be
rejected, and why this study should be rejected as ``junk science.'' Whatever the
children's
perceptions were, we know, and the authors now admit, that the children were not capable
of
legally, ethically, morally, mentally, or emotionally consenting to sex with anybody, much
less an
adult. Thus, what we are left with is a study that should never have seen the light of
day, much less
publication in a professional journal.
Finally: The futility of the author's attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on the
monstrous crime of
child sexual abuse is revealed in the example provided in their response, where they
assert that their
study is no different from another recent study showing that the children suffering from
cancer
actually adjust better than previous research had indicated. This is good news, but the
analogy
suffers catastrophic meltdown when one realizes that the fact that some children adjust to
the horror
of cancer better than others in no way lessens the awful truth that cancer is a deadly
enemy which is
in every case destructive to the organism, as is the damage wrought by children who have
been
victimized sexually by preying adults. Would anyone suggest that we no longer view such
psychologically well-adjusted children as cancer victims or lessen our resolve to
eradicate cancer?
Wouldn't there be unanimous condemnation of anyone who suggested that this cancer study be
used
as a basis for injecting ``willing'' or ``consenting'' children with cancer cells?
The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and their defenders and every child
molester who wants to have sex with our children and grandchildren will use this study to
try to
change how we protect children from sexual abuse in our public policies and laws, and to
escape or
lessen their punishment for sexual abuse of children. NAMBLA's web site hails the study as
``The
Good News About Man/Boy Love.'' They claim that the study in the ``prestigious
Psychological
Bulletin'' shows ``that the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science.'' Why
haven't the
authors and the APA condemned NAMBLA's exploitation of the study and their denial of the
truth
about child sexual abuse, rather than making a feeble attempt to rebut legitimate
criticism of the
study and its publication?
Sexually abused children find it very hard to tell an adult that they've been molested.
The molester
often threatens or blackmails them into silence. They are told that they will get into
trouble because
adults will think it's their fault. That's the most insidious message conveyed by this
study -- if children
are capable of making an ``informed consent,'' and they are not, then they are capable of
assuming
the consequences -- thus it would be their fault after all. The eventual result will be
the repeal of all
laws against sex with children and child pornography. That is the agenda of NAMBLA and
every
child molester.
The APA claims that ``the sexual abuse of children is wrong and harmful to its victims.''
When first
questioned about why they published the study, their response was that ``publication does
not imply
endorsement.'' If it's valid science why can't you endorse it and if it isn't, why did you
publish it? We
believe this study is an example of ``garbage in, garbage out.'' The premise, that
children can
``consent'' to sex with adults, is wrong; therefore, it doesn't matter that the authors
accurately
applied ``meta-analysis'' to reach a ``logical'' conclusion. The conclusion is no more
reliable than the
premise on which it is based. On May 14, 1999, the APA not only defended their publication
of this
study, their CEO, Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D, defended the study itself on MSNBC stating:
``It isn't
a bad study, it's been peer-reviewed ...it's a good study.'' They can't have it both ways.
This is
reprehensible and deserves the strongest public condemnation. Unless renounced, the chief
assertion of pedophiles will have been validated and the consequences to children will be
disastrous.
For more information or interviews, call the FRC Press Office.
SOURCE: Family Research Council
SOURCE: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990520/dc_family__1.html