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