Some notable attempts to promote pedophilia: The Rind Report, "Harmful to Minors," Harris Mirkin, and B4UAct - And a critical study of pedophilia promotion, "Pedophilia Chic" ( pizzagate )

submitted by Psalm100

In investigating pizzagate we repeatedly come across the attitude held by some that pedophilia is acceptable. Here are some quotes that discuss several of the most publicized attempts to promote pedophilia by elites over the last few decades.

A short summary of what these quotes are about:

The Rind study, 1998

Was a study by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovich and Robert Bauserman published in the Psychological Bulletin that argued child sexual abuse often doesn't harm boys, and advocated replacing the term with "adult/child sex" and dropping the words "victim" and "perpetrator" in many cases. The study caused public outrage and both the U.S. Senate and House voted to condemn it, but it has still been used by some, even in court cases, to justify pedophilia.

"Harmful to Minors," 2002

Is a book by writer Judith Levine which also promoted "adult-child sex" and received a lot of criticism. Levine cried "censorship" and was defended by the left, including web sites like Salon, Alternet, and the Huffington Post. Levine sits on the board of the National Center for Reason and Justice, "501(c)3 non-profit organization that educates and advocates for child-protective laws and criminal justice practices based on science, fairness, and good sense; and supports people who are falsely accused or convicted of crimes against children." http://archive.is/HMcxA http://archive.is/xewyg

Harris Mirkin's promotion of pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality

Outrage over Levine's book brought new attention to an old article by late University of Missouri professor Harris Mirkin which had been published in the Journal of Homosexuality and which promoted pedophilia. Missouri's House fined the university $100,000 as punishment for the article.

B4UAct

Is "a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists" that in recent years attempted to influence what the latest edition of psychiatry's manual of disorders, the DSM, says about pedophilia.

Pedophilia Chic (1996) and Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered (2001)

A series of articles written by Mary Eberstadt and published in the Weekly Standard that studied the recent history, to that point, of promoting pedophilia on the left. Still relevant.

** The Rind study**

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence has a number of critical reports on Rind. From "The Leadership Council's Analysis of Rind et al":

In July 1998 a paper titled "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples " was published in the Psychological Bulletin, the premier scientific journal of the American Psychological Association. In this paper, psychologists Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman analyzed the association between child sexual abuse and maladjustment in college samples. They reported that childhood sexual abuse is only slightly associated with psychological harm, and that harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. They also reported that "consenting" boys show no evidence of harm and often have positive reactions to sex with adults. Rind et al. concluded that behavior which professionals commonly term "child sexual abuse" may merely constitute a violation of social norms and should be considered "abuse" only if the child reacts negatively to the encounter. They also advocated less judgmental terminology. For example, a "willing encounter with positive reactions" involving a 9-year-old boy and an adult male, would no longer be considered sexual abuse; instead it would simply be called "adult-child sex," a value neutral term.

In the furor that greeted the Rind paper's publication, the scientific evidence for the authors' arguments has been largely ignored. However, it is here that we must start. Because the conclusions of the Rind et al.s study ran contrary to 20 years of research showing a robust relationship between child sexual abuse and negative outcomes, researchers affiliated with the Leadership Council joined with researchers at Stanford University and Texas A&M University to conduct an independent scientific review of the data. Our scientific critique was recently published in the Psychological Bulletin.

Our analysis found that the study by Rind et al. was seriously flawed. In fact, we found the paper was a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data and misrepresented findings that led to faulty conclusions. Some of these problems are outlined below...

  1. One of the paper's main findings had no supporting data. Rind et al. concluded that when boys consent to sex with adults, they are not harmed ("willingness was associated with no impairment to psychological adjustment" [Rind et al., 1998, p.45]). However, none of the original studies of male samples that Rind et al. included in their analysis actually asked participants whether the sexual experience was "consensual" or whether they participated willingly. Rind et al.'s so-called "consent" group was actually comprised of a wide variety of subjects including victims of forced assault and intrafamilial incest. In addition, we found no data to suggest that the abused males in this group were better adjusted than abused males not included in this group. To read about the problems with Rind et al.'s analysis of consent, click here.

  2. Rind et al. made numerous errors in reporting and analyzing data. Almost every error served to minimize the harmful effects of sexual abuse. For example, Fishman (1991) was an unpublished study of male college students for which Rind et al. (1998) reported mainly positive or neutral reactions to child sexual abuse. Rind et al. also reported an overall result for Fishman which suggested that abused males were better adjusted than nonabused males. However, when we examined Fishman's dissertation, we found that results which Rind et al. reported were in direct contradiction to the results reported by the author. Fishman clearly stated that abused males scored lower on measures of adjustment than their peers: "Students who disclosed such a sexual event (versus those who did not) were more likely to . . . identify higher levels of sexual dysfunction, and lower levels of sexual self esteem" [emphasis added] (Fishman, 1991, p. viii).

  3. Rind et al. often failed to report important qualifying data. Rind et al. accurately reported Urquiza's (1989) findings that most of the males in his study reported neutral reactions to their abuse, however, they failed to note that the men's subjective perceptions did not correlate with their results on objective measures. Compared to their nonabused peers, over two times as many abused men reported using illegal drugs, three times as many had sought therapy for emotional problems, and five times as many had attempted suicide. This is important qualifying information. Not only do Rind et al. fail to address the critical disconnect that Urquiza and other researchers have found between abused males' subjective perceptions and their objective behaviors...

  4. Rind et al. often reported their own findings in a misleading fashion...

  5. The study design ensured that little in the way of harm would be found...

  6. When Rind et al. found evidence of harm they immediately searched for an alternate explanation...

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has praised the study by Rind et al., saying it confirms that "the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science." The National Post noted that Gerald Hannon, a gay activist and former Ryerson journalism instructor, expressed gratification that an academic body had finally vindicated his longtime critique of the "taboo" against "man-boy sexual relationships." A new book called " Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers " uses the Rind paper to justify seeking out boys as sex partners. (See description of book at Amazon.com).

In addition to "gratifying" pedophiles, the paper by Rind et al. has been used by convicted child molesters to argue that they didn't harm their victims. (For more information about the use of Rind et al. in legal cases, click here) . Rind et al.'s paper has also been used as evidence that the age of sexual consent should be lowered for boys. For example, Dr. Helmut Graupner (1999) , a lawyer and Vice President of the Austrian Society for Sex Research, used Rind et al.'s paper to support his argument that consensual sexual relations between men and boys aged 14 and older should be decriminalized, and that sex with younger children should not be prosecuted as long as the contact is proven to be "consensual and harmless"...

In July 1999, the meta-analysis by Rind et al. became the first scientific study to be formally denounced by the United States Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate both unanimously passed a resolution which rejected "the conclusions of a recent article published in the Psychological Bulletin , a journal of the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children."

https://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/1.html

http://archive.is/PI2qT

Continued in comments (There are four parts total).

Psalm100

Part 4

B4UAct, 2011

From "Conference aims to normalize pedophilia," The Daily Caller, 2011:

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

http://archive.is/mvBWJ

Pedophilia Chic (1996) and Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered (2001), Mary Eberstadt, The Weekly Standard

From Pedophilia Chic:

"...It is hard to know what to make of these piecemeal attempts--which amount to nothing so elevated as a movement--to rewrite what most of the rest of us persist in thinking about adults whose sexual interests run to kids. Call it the last gasp of anihilism that has exhausted itself by chasing down every other avenue of liberation, only to find one last roadblock still manned by the bourgeoisie. Call it pedophilia chic..."

"Another place willing to ask some hard-nosed questions about grownups who are sexually interested in kids is Vanity Fair magazine. For the most part, its glossy pages seem an unlikely territory on which to argue in earnest about anything--much less about anything as obscure as whether a high school teacher obsessed with child pornography was in fact a misunderstood victim himself. Nonetheless, it was in a 1992 issue of Vanity Fair that veteran reporter Jesse Kornbluth published what is probably the most heartfelt and sympathetic portrayal of a convicted child-pornography trafficker yet to appear in expensive print. "Exeter's Passion Play," as the piece was called, concerned the fate of Larry Lane (or "Lane") Bateman, a tenured teacher at the elite Phillips Exeter Academy who was convicted in October 1992 of possessing and transporting child pornography."

"The most overt attempt by a hip journal to give pedophiles a place at the table came in the form of a May 8, 1995, "Washington Diarist" in the New Republic by Hanna Rosin entitled "Chickenhawk." Ostensibly inspired by a " riveting" documentary of the same name about the North American Man-Boy Love Association, "Chickenhawk" opens with the following quote from the film's star, a real-life pedophile named Leyland Stevenson: "He's just like a flower in bloom. He's at that perfect stage, in which he is hermaphroditic. . . . He's in that wonderful limbo between being a child and an adolescent--he's certainly an adolescent, but he has that weird feminine grace about him." Stevenson, of course, is talking about a little boy. It is a quote intended to jolt the reader, and no doubt for most readers it still does. Having already invited the reader to imagine a child as seen through the eyes of a pedophile, Rosin then proceeds to something more avant-garde still: a chatty review of man-boy love and of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (whose informal motto, as some readers may know, is "Eight is too late"). "Chickenhawk," the author explains, "is worth seeing" because it " succeeds, at least partially, in making monsters human."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/pedophilia-chic/article/2623

http://archive.is/9oerw

http://archive.is/fltrk

From Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered:

Consider David Leavitt, one of the best known of contemporary gay authors, whose numerous novels and short stories, among them The Lost Language of Cranes and, most recently, Martin Bauman; or, A Sure Thing , are routinely reviewed in the better journals and magazines. In fact, it would be hard to think of a gay fiction writer more consistently represented in mainstream publishing.

For that reason, it is all the more surprising to read what this ostensibly mainstream author chose to write in his introduction to the equally mainstream Penguin Book of International Gay Writing (1995, edited by Mark Mitchell). There, in the course of describing what the anthology includes, Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." He then draws attention to one particular book excerpted in the volume, When Jonathan Died , by Tony Duvert. "The coolly assured narrative" of this work, Leavitt informs, "compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn." Duvert, writes Leavitt, "offers us a homosexual Lolita—one in which the child is seducer as much as seduced."

The object of this praise by one of America's leading gay novelists, appearing in one of publishing's most prestigious book series, is the tale of a man and boy who are living together in Italy. The scene selected is sexually graphic. And the age of this child, whom Leavitt considers "seducer as much as seduced"? He is—page 427 in the hard cover edition—"hardly seven."

One book only recently available in the "gay studies" section of a Borders in downtown D.C., for example, is a peculiar classic of a sort entitled Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives , edited by the aforementioned pedophile icon Edward Brongersma and two colleagues. This book, according to one of its jacket endorsements, "shed[s] critical light on the broad spectrum of man-boy love and its place in ancient and contemporary societies." In other words, it is a series of briefs using scientistic polemics in an effort to rationalize the sexual molestation of boy children. The article abstracts speak for themselves. ("Pedophilia is always considered by mainstream society as one form of sexual abuse of children. However, analysis of the personal accounts provided by pedophiles suggests that these experiences could be understood differently." "The incidence of violence is very low in pedophile contacts with boys. The influence can be strong in lasting relationships; it can either be wholesome or unwholesome."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/pedophilia-chic-reconsidered/article/2619

http://archive.is/JUNQL

http://archive.is/RdqVC

Psalm100

Part 3

"Harmful to Whom," American Family Journal

In Judith Levine’s ideal world, children and young people would be educated to freely explore all realms of sexuality with each other and with adults without regard to religious, moral or psychological consequences. In Levine’s world, adults should be able to have sexual relationships with children, so long as the child consents. In Levine’s world, pedophiles simply don’t exist, or if they do, there are so many traits that could define a pedophile that virtually anyone could be one...

Levine’s supporters cried foul and screamed censorship over calls for the book’s publisher, University of Minnesota Press, to stop publication. Levine went on the interview circuit defending herself and the book, saying she in no way condones pedophilia. “No sane person would advocate pedophilia,” Levine told Salon.com in a lengthy, one-sided interview.

This statement could be seen as hypocrisy at its height, though, as some of the authorities Levine cited in Harmful to Minors have had long, storied careers in promoting pedophilia.

According to Knight and the Culture and Family Institute, Levine cites Theo Sandfort and Dr. John Money, among others, in her book, using their research to back her argument that children aren’t necessarily harmed by having sexual relationships with adults. In her book, Levine identifies Sandfort only as a “sexologist” in one place and a “psychologist” in another. “She neglects to inform readers that Sandfort is an open pedophile who has written consistently about the joys of sex with young boys,” Knight said.

Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. An AFA Journal review of Sandfort’s work found he has been an ardent proponent of male-on-child sexual relationships. In 1981, Sandfort, a lecturer in psychology at the State University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, published the results of a study he performed on boys in the Netherlands, ages 10-16, who were in ongoing pederastic relationships with adult men. He concluded that “for virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively and had no negative effect on how the youngster felt in general.”

http://www.afajournal.org/2002/june/culture.asp

http://archive.is/GqyN8

"Eppur Si Muove!," NAMBLA (equates accepting pedophilia with accepting the heliocentric model)

"Until recently sex and gender issues were thought to be biological or natural rather than political. The feminist movement largely changed perceptions of gender, and the gay and lesbian movements significantly altered conceptions of sex, so that what were once seen as permanent moral standards are now viewed as historical and political constructions. As views of these groups have moved towards social constructionism, perceptions of child sexuality have become more absolutist. Current attitudes towards child sexuality and representations of it resemble historical attitudes towards women and homosexuals. This article argues that there is a two-phase pattern of sexual politics. The first is a battle to prevent the battle, to keep the issue from being seen as political and negotiable. Psychological and moral categories are used to justify ridicule and preclude any discussions of the issue, and standard Constitutional guarantees are seen as irrelevant. The second phase more closely resembles traditional politics as different groups argue over rights and privileges. Feminist and gay/lesbian politics have recently entered the second phase, while pedophilia is in the first."

Take note of the recurring, aggressive dishonesty in these criticisms: claiming that some things are simply beyond discussion, confusing a challenge to preconceptions with a wholesale endorsement of pedophilia, attacking something (usually the Rind report) other than the work under discussion, talking about feelings of disgust & revulsion with nary an objective fact in sight, and criticizing a work you have not even read. These are not techniques designed to get to the truth. They are clever ways to stifle dissent. The problem is that they never really work.

Centuries ago, the scientist Galileo was tried for heresy by the church and forced to recant his belief in the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe. To hold such beliefs was to challenge the bible and the teachings of Aristotle – two important pillars of the church’s authority. As he left the proceedings he was said to have muttered “Eppur si muove!” – It still moves. No matter how hard the church tried it failed to prevent the universal rejection of geocentrism. Let us pray that the ideologues of today will be equally as successful.

http://archive.is/IK4XG

Harris Mirkin's promotion of pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality

From "Discussing the Politics of Child Sexuality," Alternet, 2002

Harris Mirkin - "...Rape is a bad relationship. Anything not consensual is a bad relationship.

"After that, what do we mean by sex? What do we mean by harmful? What do we mean by consensual? Some people say that kids can't consent, and I'm working on that now, I'm looking at that. There's no disagreement that kids can dissent. If they don't want to do their chores, they can make it very clear that they don't want to. So they can certainly register degress of "I don't want to do this," or "This is painful.""

http://archive.is/pEOUR

Psalm100

Part 2

From "The Controversy Surrounding the Publishing of Rind et al.":

SafeHaven, one of the main websites for "boylovers," described the 1998 meta-analysis as "ground-breaking"

"Folks this changes EVERYTHING. . . . I really do think this meta-analysis is a watershed for boylovers. . . . For several years now studies have been slowly chipping away at the harm myth. But THIS study is a major hammer-blow. It represents what is REALLY known about sex with boys, and the conclusion couldn't be clearer: When a boy and a man consent to make love with one another, the experience is positive, or at the very least neutral. There is, simply, no harm"...

June 30, 1999: The False Memory Syndome Foundation cites Rind and Tromovitch's 1997 meta-analysis in a friend of the court brief on behalf of a man appealing his conviction for sexually abusing both his daughter and step-daughter...

August 17, 1999: Rind et al.'s 1998 meta-analysis is cited by a prominent psychological expert who was testifying on behalf of a confessed pedophilic priest. In a deposition, Dr. Charles Brainerd, a defense expert representing Father Bredemann (a priest and confessed pedophile) cited Rind et al. (1998) as proof that CSA does not cause harm to children in his deposition. Referring to the Rind study, Brainerd stated: "the current scientific literature does not support the existence of such a relationship [between maladjustment and sexual abuse] in the population at large. And that's the interpretive framework that I bring to this particular case, that there isn't scientific evidence for that assumption."

https://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/cont.html

http://archive.is/9oexf

From "Science or Propaganda: An Examination of Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman (1998), Stephanie J. Dallam":

The origins of the modern pedophilia movement can be traced to the social changes that occurred during the 1960s and `70s. Encouraged by the increased tolerance for minorities and alternative lifestyles, underground pedophile groups began to go public in an effort to garner greater social acceptance (Schuijer, 1990). However, the simultaneous rise of feminism led to greater public awareness about the negative consequences of sexual abuse. Recognizing the futility of seeking decriminalization of pedophilia at a time when abuse victims were speaking out, pedophile groups changed their focus. By the early 1970s, pedophile groups began to portray themselves as champions of children's sexual emancipation (see Schuijer, 1990, p. 219). They conceded that sexual abuse was wrong but questioned whether all sexual contact between adults and children should be regarded as abusive. Claiming that children often initiated and benefited from sexual relationships with adults, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA condemned the use of force and only advocated for the decriminalization of "consensual" relationships...

Strategies for Normalizing Pedophilia

  1. The use of value-neutral terminology when describing "intergenerational" sexual relationships. Also, avoiding terms that have negative connotations (including terms such as "pedophile" or "pedophilia"), and avoiding terms which call attention to the fact that the sexual "partner" is a child.

  2. Doing away with the term child sexual abuse or restricting its use to behavior that is demonstrably harmful.

  3. Promoting the idea that children can consent to sex with adults.

  4. Questioning the assumption that sex with adults is harmful to children.

a. Blaming harm on those who intervene after CSA is discovered or disclosed.

b. Publishing work showing positive or neutral effects.

c. Proponents of man-boy love: Promoting the idea that studies showing harmful results are not applicable to boys; suggesting that boys are able to handle sex with adults at an earlier age than girls.

  1. Promoting the "objective" study of sex between adults and children free of moral and ethical considerations.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/5.html

http://archive.is/QTnI

"Misuse* of the Rind study: Legal Cases where Rind's work has been cited in defense of alleged child molesters"

https://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/leg.html

http://archive.is/PH87H

"Consent? Rind et al.'s Examination of Consent as a Moderator"

https://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/consent.html

http://archive.is/jkeZA

"Stanford researcher rebukes study claiming little ill-effect of child sexual abuse"

http://archive.is/x3DWB

Full text of the "Rind et al. study"

http://archive.is/upH1Q

Harmful to Minors, 2002

From "Experts debate impact, gray areas of adult-child sex," USA Today

Sex researchers and academics are tussling over a topic that most Americans don't even want to think about: sex between adults and children. Some of these experts are making the startling assertion that not all sexual activity between adults and minors is necessarily harmful. The result is a questioning of one of the country's most strongly held taboos.

Parents and others may gasp at the concept, especially in the current climate of scandal over sexual abuse by priests. But some serious researchers and academics want to review the term "child sexual abuse," preferring a more neutral term such as "adult-child sex."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm

http://archive.is/TWf5u

21yearsofdigging

Just almost too upsetting to read through. I might add the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as another bunch of CIA sponsored scum