quote:

January 4, 2012 (PublicDiscourse.com) - The anger and disgust that most of us experienced when we learned of the allegations of sexual abuse of boys in the sports programs at Penn State and Syracuse University suggest that our cultural norms about the sexual abuse of minors are intact. Yet it was only a decade ago that a parallel movement had begun on some college campuses to redefine pedophilia as the more innocuous “intergenerational sexual intimacy.”

The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

This redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed—an historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.

Postmodern theorists are primarily interested in writing that evokes the fragmentary nature of experience and the complexity of language. One of the most cited sources for this is the book Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspectives. This collection of writings by scholars, mostly European but some with U.S. university affiliations, provides a powerful argument for what they now call “intergenerational intimacy.” Ken Plummer, one of the contributors, writes that “we can no longer assume that childhood is a time of innocence simply because of the chronological age of the child.” In fact, “a child of seven may have built an elaborate set of sexual understandings and codes which would baffle many adults.”

Claiming to draw upon the theoretical work of the social historians, the socialist-feminists, the Foucauldians, and the constructionist sociologists, Plummer promised to build a “new and fruitful approach to sexuality and children.” Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition.

Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.”

In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality published a double issue devoted to adult-child sex titled “Inter-generational Intimacy.” David Thorstad, former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance and a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), writes that “boy love occurs in every neighborhood today.” The movement continues but has gone underground since NAMBLA found itself embroiled in a $200 million wrongful death and civil rights lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. The suit claims that the writings on NAMBLA’s website caused NAMBLA member Charles Jaynes to torture, rape, and murder a 10-year-old Boston boy.

Not so long ago, the postmodern pedophiles had help in defining down their deviance from the American Psychological Association. In 1998, the association published an article in its Psychological Bulletin that concluded that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. The authors recommended that pedophilia should instead be given a value-neutral term like “adult child sex.” NAMBLA quickly posted the “good news” on its website, stating that “the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science.”

quote: (post)

Originally posted by focus4chumps
slippery slope for the win

thats it isnt it? you're quizzing us. do i get a gold star?

quote:

In 1998, the association [American Psychological Association; APA] published an article in its Psychological Bulletin that concluded that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. The authors recommended that pedophilia should instead be given a value-neutral term like “adult child sex.”

quote:

The American Psychological Association Wednesday distanced itself from a report published by the group which claimed that child sexual abuse "does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis," saying the group failed to consider the potential for misinforming the public by publishing the report.

...

APA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Raymond D. Fowler wrote that some of the material in the report A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, was "inflammatory," and "inconsistent with the APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare."

...

Fowler concluded that inconsistencies between some of the article's statements and the APA's position on pedophilia "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."

quote:

Conceptual issues

Rind et al.'s model of "assumed properties of child sexual abuse," (that is, of universal and pervasive harm in all victims of CSA) has been criticized as a straw man assertion in that it is both simplistic and misleading.[5][17] The reactions of victims in their adult lives have been found to be extremely varied, ranging from severe to nearly unnoticeable, and many pathologies are not diagnosable in the strictly clinical sense Rind uses. Victims often have a flawed or distorted appraisal of their abuse, and fail to connect distressing and sometimes debilitating pathologies with their experiences. Further, these studies make no accounting for emotional support of the victim's family, clinical treatment of the victim prior to the study, or personal resiliency, which can easily account for less severe outcomes.[5]

...

Stephanie Dallam and Anne Salter have pointed out that Rind and Bauserman have had associations with age of consent reform organizations. In the years before the paper was written, both Rind and Bauserman had published articles in Paidika, a defunct journal whose purpose was "Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience."[19] In addition, shortly after the paper's publication, Rind and Bauserman were keynote speakers at a pedophile advocacy conference occurring in the Netherlands.[20]

...

Numerous studies and work in the field of psychology from long both before and after Rind et al.'s publication have supported the stance that children cannot consent to sexual activity and are harmed by it.[5][23] The Rind study continues to be trumpeted by various pro-pedophilia groups and individuals, but its usage in legal action to defend such individuals has gradually waned since its congressional condemnation.[5]

In the behavioral sciences, modern works may make passing reference to the study, but largely ignore its more controversial conclusions.[24] A study published in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice published attempted to replicate the Rind study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam and others. It supported some of the Rind findings, both with respect to the percentage of variance in later psychological outcomes accounted for by sexual abuse and in relation to the finding that there was a gender difference in the experience of child sexual abuse, such that females reported more negative effects. However it also acknowledged the limitations of the findings (college student sample, self-report data), and did not endorse Rind's recommendation to abandon the use of the term 'child sexual abuse' in cases of apparent consent in favor of the term 'adult-child sex'. In their conclusion, the authors address the objection that Rind's work and their own would give support to those who deny that child sexual abuse can cause harm: "The authors of the current research would hesitate to support such a general statement. Instead, our results, and the results of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, can be interpreted as providing a hopeful and positive message to therapists, parents, and children. Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm."[25]

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition."

Man, this is what I have been saying for years. I can certainly say that I was fully prepared (intellectually and socially) at a much younger age than 18 for sexual activity: maybe even as far back as 8. I know of at least one other person who feels the same way and she put that age around 8 or 9. Some people just grasp social situations better than others and it is definitely not linear for everyone.


That's as far as I would take that, however. I cannot speak for all children and the extreme majority would not know what sex or sex related interactions are at 8 years old. This falls under the same age limit as voting, getting a driver's license, and so forth. The vast majority of the time, the person is not intellectually or socially developed enough to warrant setting the age limit to something too young. So we set age limits on those things fully knowing that there are tons of exceptions...but "catch most of them".


What about a test? That would be difficult to establish. Someone smarter than me (in psychology) would need to tell me if a test would be an appropriate measure of determining if a child is mature enough (intellectually and socially) to do anything sexual. I proposed such things in the past to prevent ANYONE from having sexual activity (because I'm a fascist a**hole who subscribes to eugenics... apparently) unless they passed such a test and the obvious consequence of such a test would be minors passing it.

Edit - I am NOT advocating shit like NAMBLA or pedophilia. I am only saying that it is highly possible that "sexuality" is not necessarily determined by some arbitrary age (which the US thinks should be 18) but is a varied experience for everyone. Some are never mature enough. Some are mature quite a bit sooner than 18 (I am not talking "sexually", explicitly, but that could count as well).

quote:

Man, this is what I have been saying for years. I can certainly say that I was fully prepared (intellectually and socially) at a much younger age than 18 for sexual activity: maybe even as far back as 8. I know of at least one other person who feels the same way and she put that age around 8 or 9. Some people just grasp social situations better than others and it is definitely not linear for everyone.

quote:

Fowler concluded that inconsistencies between some of the article's statements and the APA's position on pedophilia "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."

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So the APA didn't but after people got upset because pedophilia is grotesque and immoral the APA are willing to rethink their positions not that they want to be judgmental or bigoted or anything but because the research was "inflammatory" and from now on they'll be more careful. Yep.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, you weren't. You might be under the delusion that you were totally geared up for sex and you could handle it, but the idea that you were emotionally prepared to handle that level of physical intimacy at eight is retarded.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, you weren't. You might be under the delusion that you were totally geared up for sex and you could handle it, but the idea that you were emotionally prepared to handle that level of physical intimacy at eight is retarded.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, you weren't. You might be under the delusion that you were totally geared up for sex and you could handle it, but the idea that you were emotionally prepared to handle that level of physical intimacy at eight is retarded.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Sixty years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Now, transgenderism is considered normal in progressive circles. It's only a matter of time, you know. It won't stop.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And here I thought that most people who hated Jews were into finger-banging their underage daughters...