I forwarded this post to a list which has some of the leading
researchers in the field of sex research as subscribers. Here are
their responses. The one from Paul Okami was sent directly back to
TIPS but probably didn't make it. If it did, I aopologize for the
repeat.
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[from Paul Okami]
Judith Reisman, ace former script-writer for the Captain Kangaroo T.V. show,
with no credentials either in psychology or sexology, is a self-appointed
guardian of the public morals and avowed enemy of Alfred Kinsey. Her
book(s) -- actually I believe there's only one -- are self-published and she
has never had a peer-reviewed article published in a legitimate journal of
sexology or psychology as far as I know. She may be President of the
Institute for Media Research, but then she's also the vice-President,
secretary, treasurer and janitor.
A few of the more glaring and bizarre statements in her post that deserve
correction.
1) There is not now, nor has there ever been an Academic Pedophile
Advocates group. This is Reisman's wacky way of attacking the APA. APA
(Academic Pedophile Advocates... get it?)
2) Kinsey was not a pedophile and no one who new him ever claimed that he
was. Reisman is lying when she said a former colleague "whispered" this to
her.
3) The Swansea conference on Love and Attraction referred to by Reisman
did attempt to allow a tiny contingent from P.I.E. to attend, headed by
O'Carroll, but they were shouted down and O'Carroll was not permitted to
speak. O'Carroll was not an academic and was a more or less effete
pedophile who exiled himself and crawled into the woodwork following this
fiasco.
4) The so-called "Journal of Pedophilia" to which Reisman refers is
called "Peidika", is published in Holland by a very tiny group of
self-described pedophiles. The journal contains articles by pedophiles and
non-pedophiles. No more than a very very tiny group of scholars -- none of
whom has any significant presence in the scientific community, but are all
humanities folks -- "came out" as pedophiles in the context of this journal.
The use of "many" by Reisman is a joke.
5) The Psychology Bulletin article to which Resiman and Schelesinger
refer is a highly credible and competent meta-analysis of studies of sexual
abuse among non-clinical samples. Unlike virtually all other reviews, it
does NOT offer many subjective opinions but simply allows the data to speak
for themselves. This article does not offer anything that is not available
to anyone else who wishes to examine the evidence in a dispassionate manner.
Moreover, it is NOT the only article to arrive at the conclusions it does
based on evidence. Nowhwere in the article do the authors say that
adult-child sex is "fun."
6) Nowhere in the Psych Bul article do the authors say or imply that sex
between adults and children should be "okay." Quite the opposite. The
author affirm that such events are wrong and dangerous.
7) The DSM IV definitely DOES NOT say that a person who molests children
does not necessarily have a disorder. Molestation is one of the defining
criteria of the disorder pedophilia in the DSM IV. Reisman and Schlesinger
clearly do not know how to read: (DSM IV page 528): "Over a period of at
least 6 months, recurrent intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges,
OR BEHAVIORS (my emphasis) involving sexual activity with a prepubescent
child or children (generally age 13 years or younger))". I
8) Reisman's statement that "Psychology" "recognizes pedophilia as
harmless" is beyond laughable. The notion of "consensual adult-child
sex" far from "being promoted" in psychology journals is indeed
considered an oxymoron in at least 99% of all articles published on
this subject, just as it is considererd an oxymoron in the law.
9) Reisman's claim that 2.8 articles on sexual abuse are published per
year in APA journals is either a outright lie, a misprint, or a failure on
her part to research this question.
Paul Okami
Department of Psychology
UCLA
405 Hilgard Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90095
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[from Jack Drescher]
After homosexuality was deleted from the diagnostic manual of the
American Psychiatric Association in 1973, those who opposed the
decision, and whose professional reputations depended upon the
pathologizing of homosexuality, went on a relentless campaign to
discredit the APA. For a while, the American Psychoanalytic
Association served as a way station, as psychoanalysts rejected the
normal variant model of homosexuality while organized psychiatry and
psychology worked on acceptance. Charles Socarides, the President of
NARTH, in his 1995 book, even accuses the APA of miscounting the
ballots in the 1972 referendum. If you were the most famous "curer" of
homosexuality and your professional colleagues pulled the diagnostic
rug out from under you, what else could you do?
Given that western societies are increasingly moving closer to
acceptance of homosexuality between consenting adults, the
antihomosexual side has decided to raise the stakes by raising the
issue of pedophilia as a "logical" consequence of normalizing
homosexuality. This is not a new position, although it is taking on a
more hysterical tone. Since Kinsey's study was a seminal moment in the
normalization of homosexuality, attacking him and labeling him as a
pedophile is an attempt to undermine the cultural and scientific shifts
that led to the normalization of homosexuality. And as the article
posted suggests, intellectuals and university professors (a favorite
target of right-wingers) are presented as the architects of a grand
pedophile conspiracy. No proof is necessary, while sweeping
generalizations are facilely made that play upon people's fears and
prejudices.
Framing the debate in this way is a political tactic and one
reminiscent of the red-baiting of the McCarthy era. Anyone defending
Kinsey, the two APAs, or any open discussions of sexuality can be
automatically suspect of condoning child abuse. Many will keep silent
under conditions like these, some might even come forward and say they
were once part of the conspiracy but have seen the light.
Professional lives and careers can be ruined. As the Chinese say, may
you live in interesting times.
For the record, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) still lists pedophilia as a "paraphilia"
and, to my knowledge, there is no movement within the APA to remove it.
Here are the diagnostic criteria:
A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually
arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
or younger).
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically
significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning.
C. The person is at least 16 years of age and at least 5 years older
than teh child or children in Criterion A (Note: Do not include an
individual in late adolescence who is in an ongoing sexual relationship
with a 12- or 13- year old.)
Jack Drescher, M.D.
[from Vern Bullough]
Judith Reisman has been conducting a crusade against what she claims
was Kinsey's use of pedophiles. She also wrote a book on it, Kinsey,
Sex, and Fraud, which is the worst book (in terms of grammar, editing,
sentence construction et al) that I have read. She is off the deep
end, but that does not stop her from going on with her crusade. I
have written up her campaign in the Journal of Sex Research, and
otehrs have also. Kinsey did use the notebooks et al of a convicted
pedophile and says so in his footnotes and in the text, since the man
kept meticulous detailed notes. He was also sent to jail for his
activities. There was also a conferenc in England which among other
things was going to have a paper on integeneratonal sex, but which was
broken up.
Sincerely, Vern L. Bullough.
