Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6)

 

Child Sex Trauma myth, a self fulfilling prophecy.
The faulty child sex trauma theory is the cause of child sex trauma.

Children generally do not get traumatized by *consensual adult/child sexual experiences. Rather the trauma is caused  by the reaction of parents, peers, teachers,  police, and, yes, therapists. Therapy is often traumatizing.

This conclusion is so drastic and shocking that even we, at Human-Stupidity.com only recently understood the profound implications. The hysterical falsification of science doesn’t just put men in prison with draconian punishments, it actually causes damage to children it purports to protect (compare also Milton Diamond) .

Prohibition of adult/child sexual contact must be justified on ethical, not on scientific grounds. In other words, don’t use false science to justify your moral rules. Disclaimer

Finkelhor (1979) proposed an ethical justification for prohibiting adult/child (defined as a prepubertal youngster) sexual behavior. The reason for using an ethical justification was that the justification based on psychological harm lacked cogency. According to Finkelhor, it was empirically weak since "it is possible that a majority of these children are not harmed" (p.693

Forcible, non-*consensual CSA (Child Sex Abuse), of course, is very different.

From the child’s point of view and from the commonsense point of view, there is an enormous difference between intercourse with a willing little girl and the forcible penetration of the small vagina of a terrified child. One woman I know enjoyed sex with her uncle all through her childhood, and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away to school. What disturbed her then was not what her uncle had done but the attitude of her teachers and the school psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special help. In order to capitulate to their expectation, she began to fake symptoms she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty for not having felt guilty. She ended up judging herself quite harshly for this innate lechery (cited in Schultz, 1980, p. 39).   Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect – Scientifically Correct

In addition to such anecdotal evidence, research with large samples clearly showed that many children did not get harmed by such adult/child sexuality. Disclaimer

But sex, in general, is not like being mauled by a dog or torture, which are always painful and traumatic. Sex is often just the opposite–the most pleasurable experience one can have. It therefore cannot be assumed a priori that a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old, for example, will react with trauma rather than pleasure just because his or her partner is older. In fact, teens of this age often do not react as the orthodoxy insists they must, as the following example illustrates. It was related by Dan Savage, in relation to the attacks on our study, in his nationally syndicated column “Savage Love” (July 29, 1999):

Why is this controversial? Speaking as a survivor of CSA at fourteen with a twenty-two-year-old woman; sex at fifteen with a thirty-year-old man–I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory. It’s absurd to think that what I did at fifteen would be considered “child sexual abuse,” or lumped together by lazy researchers with the incestuous rape of a five-year-old girl.
The Condemned Meta-Analysis on Child Sexual Abuse

(The Child Sex Trauma Myth #6)

This is the 6TH in a series of articles about the Child Sex Trauma Myth
(#1 disclaimer, #2, #3, #4, #5)

Unlike Susan Clancy, who stumbled upon the truth and partially retracted:

  • Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman are the intellectual academic elite,
  • worthy of being published in the top journals of the American Psychological Association and
  • worthy of being unanimously condemned by US congress and senate

Such research and its unpopular results are absolutely taboo and verboten

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6)” »
Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6) » continues here »

Share

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles

We are not pedophiles. We have no interest in children or their indecent depictions.

We make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 .

We are interested in truth, free academic research, in protection and happiness for children 5.
We are against unnecessary witch hunts that demonize and imprison people with unnecessary rigor and that criminalize a huge percentage of the (male) population.


The biggest of all taboos: to research, study or discuss adult-child sexuality.

We have been warned. We will be called pedophiles. We may suffer vigilante action. We may suffer government prosecution. We should not mess with the topic adult-child sex.

Yes we are talking about real children under 12 years of age, not just 17 year old adolescent young adults, re-defined as "children" by feminist dogma and by the *United Nations.

The Rind Study serves as a warning: a prestigious, peer reviewed meta analysis, published in one of the most prestigious journals of the American Psychological Association: probably the only piece of peer reviewed academic research condemned by unanimous vote by both the United States Senate and Congress.

The authors’ stated 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?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.  Wikipedia on Bruce Rind 

The US Senate and Congress have decided, once and for all, by dogmatic fiat: "child sexual abuse" is is extremely traumatic under all circumstances.  Academic research must not arrive at any different conclusions.

Such a shocking interference of religious and moral zealots with scientific truth has not happened since Galileo Galilei: a few centuries ago, the catholic church decreed the "scientific truth" that the sun revolves around the earth.

The Trauma Myth

Susan Clancy inadvertently stumbled over the unpopular truth, as published in

The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children–and Its Aftermath .

All hell broke loose. I was bombarded with accusations that I was hurting victims even more than they already had been and that I was a friend of pedophiles. I was also vilified by many in my own scientific community. Some colleagues and graduate students stopped talking to me. A well-meaning professor told me to pick another research topic because I was going to rule myself out of a job in academia. Some felt my research had a political agenda, one biased against victims. I was invited to give a talk about my research at Cambridge Hospital—home of the tremendously influential sexual abuse treatment program Victims of Violence. No one from the program showed up. Clancy (pp. 77-78).

Researchers refuse to discuss issues in a seminar?! The most convinced adversaries never counter with true research, with true arguments?

This is the sad state of affairs. A dogma does not need to be discussed scientifically. The Bible has the definite answer. The US senate made the scientific decision.

And Human-Stupidity has the insanity to question and analyze the dogma.

 

Human-Stupidity is open to science. Just prove me wrong, using science.

  1. TruthWillSetYouFreeIf unbiased free academic research can show that 17 year olds get traumatized for life for having sex with older people, we will support age-of-consent laws.
  2. If the Rind study, and Susan Clancy can be proven wrong, by free unbiased academic research, we will support draconian decade-long punishments for all childhood sexuality. 
  3. We would stand corrected if the voodoo theory could be proven true, by free unbiased academic research: if it were proven that looking at photos of lightly clothed 15 year olds, downloaded for free from the internet does irreparable harm to the minors depicted. If that harm is so perverse that looking at the photos ruins the model’s life forever. And that downloading free photos truly stimulates the rape and abuse of innumerous children. Then we might agree that life in prison without parole is a proper punishment for possession of a few hundred photos, which are nothing else then 0’s and 1’s in files on a computer hard drive.

But against all odds, Milton Diamond, in peer reviewed research, proved the opposite: freely available child pornography reduces sex crimes against children, because many pedophiles can satisfy themselves merely by perusing pictures.

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles” »
The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you def… » continues here »

Share

Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings.  Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research.  After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.

Disclaimer: The issue here is repression of research and denial of the truth. One still may defend the laws as they are, but should not repress free research that could challenge one’s personal political opinions.

http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2002/decjan/silenced.html

Another clash between highly charged political rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerned Associate Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld. It began with a 1998 paper in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Temple University’s Bruce Rind and two colleagues had conducted a review of quantitative literature, finding a weak link between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology. Radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger blasted the article as an effort to normalize pedophilia. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning it, and finally, the chief executive of the APA wrote that the findings “should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.”

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More about Repression of Scientific Findings »
Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed … » continues here »

Share

Victim: Courts did more harm than Polanski

The events of a single afternoon when she was 13 years old have haunted Samantha Geimer her entire life. A famous movie director allegedly gave her champagne and had sex with her.
She is 45 now, and wishes the whole matter would just go away. The arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland over the weekend makes that highly unlikely. Geimer is back in the news in connection with the infamous 1977 California sex case, whether she likes it or not.
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

Of course, if the worst allegations were true, that Polanski drugged the girl without her knowledge, and raped her while she told him to stop, everyone agrees this is a serious crime. But, where is the proof? It is strange that with sexual crimes against minors, the alleged perpetrator is “guilty until proven innocent”. Many times a minor gets caught by the parents, and instead of admitting she did it willingly, she decides to cry rape. So in normal cases, the legal rule is “innocent until proven guilty”. That is the rule that should be valid for all legal cases, even if a few guilty people were to be set free unjustly.

Quaeludes were a recreational drug, not a date rape drug, so if the girl were conscious of the fact and not underage, there would not be a maior problem. Note also that there is no proof for all the allegations that he gave her quaeludes
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methaqualone

So Polanski did a plea bargain, admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Yes the girl was fairly young, but millions of men would go to jail if this would be enforced regularly. I think it is worse to get a minor pregnant, when she is not ready for a child physiologically, psychologically, and financially.  As shown in other posts here, it seems that the hysteria about underage sex is not supported by scientific facts. Worse, scientific research about underage sexuality is actively suppressed and shunned. The link before shows how prestigious scientific research (not a fringe publication but the American Psychological Association) showed that most underage sexuality causes no problems. This research was rejected by unanimous vote in the US senate. Where else would the US senate repress research? Well, Clinton repudiated the Bell Curve, racial differences are another no-no.

Also notice that in the 70ies, times were different. Holland legally published porn movies with 16 year old actors. The blue lagoon with nude scenes of very young actresses has not even been out yet. In most parts of the world, all these things became criminalized later 

And finally, most crimes would have prescribed after 35 years.

So is there a problem: yes. But I don’t see it as a huge problem that is being made out of it. And, often forgotten, there is a problem when adult women (or men) take recreational drugs and drink alcohol, and maybe they end up doing things they would not have done otherwise.  Independent of being underage or not. Aclohol-related loss of self control is a huge problem.

Enough playing devils’ advocate today. This is not the complete discussion of the issue, just some points that are often omitted.

Share

Man who sought prostitute for son (14y) sentenced

A father who asked an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute to take his 14-year-old son’s virginity has been given a suspended prison sentence. ** We consider this a victimless crime and see no scientific proof that young kids need protection from their sexual drives.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
Man who sought prostitute for son (14y) sentenced » continues here »

A father who asked an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute to take his 14-year-old son’s virginity has been given a suspended prison sentence.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More about underage client for prostitution »
Man who sought prostitute for son (14y) sentenced » continues here »

Share

“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research

The blog put up a very very nice listing of persecution of scientists, of repression of scientific research by dogmatic people. It is correctly called radical left. I would not sign off blindly on all their statements.

[Disclaimer: My main topic is “defense of free research”, “freedom to find the scientific true facts” without getting death threats. This is not a crusade for underage sex, it is rather about unbiased truth & freedom of research versus dogmatic preconceived ideas]

http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/5/1990675.html

In the only instance of a U.S. Congressional resolution against a scientific paper, the House of Representatives, with only minimal opposition, denounced a study by Dr. Bruce Rind & others, published in the scholarly review, Psychological Bulletin, in 1998.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More Child Abuse Dogmatists »
“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research » continues here »

Share