Luke:
Since this is the first that I (APA member) have heard of "Academic Pedophile
Advocates", I would be hesistant to deem them a "significant group". I really
doubt that this philosophy represents the mainstream of APA thought on the
effects of child sexual abuse.
I know that some people who treat abused children feel that (adult) hysteria
that follows the discovery of abuse can make the long term effects somewhat
worse - but this is a far cry from saying that the abuse itself is not
harmful.
I remember in graduate school being taught about certain fringe groups that
advocate "the decriminalization of all sexual activity" including adult-child
sex and the like. Although I found their stance objectionable, I understood
pretty clearly that this was an extremist group (along the lines of NAMBLA)
and not a significant factor. That was over 15 years ago. This was and is
pretty much a minority view. The best thing that clear-headed practicioners
can do is address the claims these folks make rationally using the vast body
of research by credible researchers (Finkelhor and others) that says that
adult-child sex is harmful and that consent is dubious.
I also have to question Dr. Laura's motives in attaching herself to this cause
- she appears to be trying to paint all APA membership with a broad brush -
her usual M.O. This is not helpful (but she rarely is.) "Psychology is a god
to the public"? Hardly. Just as many view us as witch doctors and "head
shrinkers."
Nancy Melucci
El Camino et al College
Torrance et al CA
