The Truth About Pedophilia 2

I've studied human sexuality extensively. There's actually strong scientific evidence (strong enough to form a consensus) that shows that consensual child-adult sexual relations are just as varied as peer relations and that the harm comes from peoples reactions. The article doesn't mention this but pedophilia is a well researched topic with data going back over 100 years and all the evidence shows that when you control for socioeconomic status and peer relations there is no damage done by the act itself. Some studies even suggest that it's so wide spread that there's no such thing as pedophilia, that it's normal sexual behavior felt by everyone. Even Freud recognized it was a common occurrence, although he came to a weird conclusion. He ran into his patience mentioning early sexual activity with their families so often that he believed they were making it up.

 

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_3_br1.htm

 

http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/bernard/factual.htm

 

Pedophilia didn't even really become the 'problem' it is today until the 80s when the psychological community went nuts over 'satanic ritual abuse' which was later discovered to be a hoax (though they still make a lot of money off of it). Books like Show Me (which you can still buy today)  that featured kids in sexual activities with each other and adults (don't believe me? Google Image Search it) sold millions of copies and won awards. It even got a sequel. One review mentioned she showed the book to her 13 year old daughter who replied that it was tame 'kids stuff'.

 

With todays fear of sexuality and politicians desire to be 'tough on crime' coupled with peoples belief that children are fragile crystal glass that have to be monitored at all times pedophiles make for easy scapegoats. They've become a thing of myth and legend, just read through the comments here and you'll find all sorts of crazy lies with no scientific backing (pedophiles were victims themselves, they have a lower IQ, they're depraved sex fiends). A large portion of the psychological community doesn't think this will last and pedophilia will ultimately be accepted.

 

Empirical research has failed time and time again to come up with a consensus on this issue. Just look at

this one article from 1979: http://www.mhamic.org/sources/finkelhor.htm

 

>Adult-child sex is damaging to children; they are frightened and disturbed by it, and later develop sexual problems. While this is true in many cases, and some children are severely harmed, this argument is based on an empirical rather than a moral foundation, and **an empirical foundation that is far from established**. It is not known what percent of children are harmed. **Clinical reports cannot answer this question, because large numbers of cases never come to the attention of clinicians, and the majority of the children involved may not be harmed.** The unreliability of this argument will become apparent as stories of positive experiences become publicized. Inevitably they will, since society has maintained the unrealistic assumption that such experiences do not exist.

 

He acknowledges that the majority of children may not be harmed and then goes on to say that the only argument that they can create against it to combat the situation is a hypocritical double standard. A reanalysis of the data up to this point was done, twice, and found that home dysfunction accounted for the majority of the problems and that the child-adult sexual encounters made up only about 1%:

 

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

 

And he was right, as more evidence has come forth researchers have taken notice, of particular importance is the Kilpatrick 1996 study because of the methods used in obtaining the data and building a control (which previously was incredibly difficult): http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_3_br1.htm

 

>The data from this study were first briefly presented in a 1986 article.  There Kilpatrick included the study in the classification of studies that report primarily neutral effects of childhood sexual experiences.  Here, based upon rather sophisticated data analyses, **she reports no significant differences between women with childhood sexual experiences and those without.**  This is true even when force, pressure, and guilt are factored in.  Also she reports: "**For the 501 women in the study the primary reactions to the experiences were positive**" (p.113).  **Most women were voluntary participants in the sexual experience.**

 

>The incidence of incest is .6% in this study, considerably less than what is spread about in the media.  Kilpatrick suggests that the frequency of sexual abuse is declining rather than increasing. The gap of six years between the first publication of the data and the full report in this book may be due in part to the fact that given current child sexual abuse dogma, Kilpatrick's findings would not be considered politically correct.

 

>Kilpatrick's findings are indeed demythologizing.  **Her study is important because it is based on a respectable sample size, uses a community-based sample and includes all sexual experiences so peer sexual contacts are also reported.  In addition, an effort is made to avoid biasing the responses.**  This book is recommended highly and should be read carefully by all those concerned with juvenile female sexual experience.

 

 

>This book will be disturbing to many readers.  The assumption that all children are "damaged" by their experiences is challenged by Kilpatrick's finding that **38% of the adult respondents reported the sexual experiences as children to be "pleasant" while only 25% reported them to be "unpleasant."**  Kilpatrick also found that, although the majority of the women stated that the experience was initiated by the partner, **for many (23% of the children 0-14 years and 39% of adolescents 15-17 years) the women reported having been the initiator.**  Another surprising finding was that only 4% of the respondents reported that they would have liked to have had counseling.

 

In fact researches in the 70s were commenting that the opposition against the child-adult sex taboo was reaching a critical mass: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1981/JASA12-81McCauley.html

 

And then the moral panic of the 80s happened and researches started using 'recovered memory' techniques and now you're demonized for even wanting to research the subject. There is no scientific evidence that consensual child-adult sexual relations are harmful, none. There is however evidence that shows that it does have health benefits. This is well researched and actually well accepted among academics: http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/bernard/factual.htm, but the psychological community will destroy you if you ever try to say otherwise.

 

Interesting thing about pedophilia is that it didn't become a bad thing until as recently as the late 1800s. Before then it was completely normal and juries refused to enforce age of consent laws which at the time was 12. They did this not because they didn't care about the child, but because most of the time the relationships were consensual. It wasn't until feminism and religious conservatives started getting worried about young girls being more independent and open with their sexuality (as they entered the work force) that they started fighting to raise the age of consent to limit the amount of young girls dating older men, something they likened to prostitution because they believed they were doing it for economic gain. They fought for these laws even though the majority disagreed with them (unfortunately they didn't vote, that's democracy for ya).

 

A history of age of consent laws: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FJailbait-

 

Politics-Statutory-United-States%2Fdp%2F0791459063ei=LK9nUK61G-S-2AXdg4D4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGSWDkWA7r2Cr_4IQ_ZBzWuw9JHbQ)

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20100627095601/http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

 

Studies of child-hood sexuality:

 

http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/research.htm

 

http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/martinson/infant/InfantAndChildSexuality.html

 

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

 

http://sexuality.spaceandmotion.com/sexual-development-children-teen.htm

 

http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm

 

Studies done into the psychology industry:

 

http://www.amazon.com/First-Do-No-Harm-Industry/dp/0864700474/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347509168&sr=1-42&keywords=first+do+no+harm

 

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

 

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

 

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/repression.html

 

http://www.ipce.info/library/web-article/trauma-myth-susan-clancy-book-review

 

http://transres.freeweb7.com/levine.html

 

http://www.ipce.info/library_2/files/rind_jen.htm

 

http://www.nambla.org/trauma_myth.html

 

http://tanadineen.com/writer/writings/sexualharass.htm

 

Manufacturing Victims: http://tanadineen.com/documents/MV3.pdf

 

http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-To-Minors-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pdT1_S_nC?

 

ie=UTF8&colid=76HTLA12QPTR&coliid=I2ZYLJADY7SNA0

 

http://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Innocence-Culture-Child-Molesting/dp/0822321777/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=76HTLA12QPTR&coliid=I2OBVH6P4AIKLB

 

Articles and books on the hysteria and others:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-Fear-Americans-Minorities/dp/0465003362

 

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41459

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/29/six-year-old-wisconsin-boy-being-prosecuted-for-playing-doctor-with-a-five-year-old/

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460225,00.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County_child_abuse_cases

 

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

 

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310183555/http://logicalreality.com/openbb/board.php?FID=61

 

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/faulty_science/us-congress-senate-condemn-scientific-researc

 

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/

 

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/children-loved-child-porn-modeling-photo-sessions-were-the-highlight-of-my-life-children-traumatized-by-federal-government-prosecution

 

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/i_did_not_know.htm

 

http://www.b4uact.org/facts.htm

 

http://www.vice.com/read/the-a-to-z-of-sexual-history-incest

 

http://www.historyundressed.com/2009/08/incest-within-royal-families.html

 

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/repression.html

 

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/legal-child-pornography-reduces-child-sex-crimes-milton-diamond-hawaii

 

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-porn-laws-kill-destroy-lives-judge-jack-b-weinstein

 

http://transres.freeweb7.com/levine.html

 

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

 

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

 

Harden, K., Mendle, J., Hill, J., Turkheimer, E., and Emery, R. (2008). "Rethinking timing of first sex and delinquency[1]," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(4), 373-385.

 

>"The relation between timing of first sex and later delinquency was examined using a genetically informed sample of 534 same-sex twin pairs from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, who were assessed at three time points over a 7-year interval. [...] After controlling for these genetic and environmental confounds using a quasi-experimental design, earlier age at first sex predicted lower levels of delinquency in early adulthood. [...]

 

> Although the current results are contrary to embedded assumptions, they are actually consistent with previous research. Specifically, three quasi-experimental (longitudinal or behavior genetic) studies that examined whether timing of first sex influences subsequent psychosocial functioning, controlling for psychological differences that precede sexual initiation, have all failed to find adverse effects for sexual timing. [...]

 

>The current study suggests that there may be positive functions for early initiation of sexual activity, in that the co-twin with earlier age at first sex demonstrated lower levels of delinquency in early adulthood. This result echoes a small but important body of previous research. In one of the first pieces of sex research, Kinsey et al. (1953) concluded that premarital sexual activity resulted in minimal "psychological disturbance" and may result in healthier non-romantic relationships and greater happiness later in life. More recent research has indicated that early sexual timing is associated with popularity (Prinstein et al. 2003); high self-esteem (for a review see Goodson et al. 2006; Paul et al. 2000); positive self-concept (Pedersen et al. 2003); high levels of body pride (Lammers et al. 2000), and increasing closeness to the same-sex best friend (Billy et al. 1988). [...] In the domain of adult sexual functioning, earlier age at first sex was found to predict greater coital orgasmic capacity in adult women (Raboch and Bartak 1983) and to discriminate sexually functional versus non-functional older men (age 64 years; Vallery-Masson et al. 1981). Women reporting an earlier age at first sex demonstrate less reactivity and faster recovery (as measured by cortical response) in response to stress (Brody 2002)."

 

Okami, Paul; Olmstead, Richard; and Abramson, Paul R. (1997). "Sexual experiences in early childhood: 18-year longitudinal data from the UCLA family lifestyles project - University of California, Los Angeles,"

 

Journal of Sex Research, 34, 339-347.

 

> "On the other hand, lack of sex play has been indicted for delaying normal development (Gadpaille, 1981), causing sexual pathology in adulthood (Currier, 1981), or indirectly resulting in social violence, as some have concluded from the work of Prescott (1975, 1979)."

 

Sagan, C. (1980). "Who Speaks For Earth".

 

 

>"The neuropsychologist James W. Prescott has performed a startling cross-cultural statistical analysis of 400 preindustrial societies and found that cultures that lavish physical affection on infants tend to be disinclined to violence. Even societies without notable fondling of infants develop nonviolent adults, provided sexual activity of adolescents is not repressed. Prescott believes that cultures with a predisposition for violence are composed of individuals who have been deprived—during at least one of two critical stages in life, infancy and adolescence—of the pleasures of the body. Where physical affection is encouraged, theft, organized religion and invidious displays of wealth are inconspicuous; where infants are physically punished, there tends to be slavery, frequent killing, torturing, and mutilation of enemies."