Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization

http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html

Belief in such myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions
against victimizing children


Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult–Child Sex/Victimization

Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult–child sex is proscribed in most countries today.

Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult– child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.

For example, an incest Web site titled “Golden Incest Sites!” lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.

The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.

The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult–child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men’s internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.

It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult–child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men’s
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)

3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult–Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims’ Pain and Trauma)

Masking child victims’ pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims’ pain when he
photographed young girls:

They couldn’t show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I’d give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)

British journalist Davies (1994) describes “a video of a ‘girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her” (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
“The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl’s
smile as evidence of her consent” (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.

Linz and Imrich (2001) note that:

Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)

The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.

4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult–Child Sex/Victimization

Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that “most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior” (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These “flase belief-systems” (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children “that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong” (Tate, 1990, p. 110).

Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
commonly held by pedophiles:

1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.

Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children “consented to the actions,” or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be “consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it” (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that “[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative”
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography “enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality” (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe “that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child” (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284–285).

The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult–child sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult– child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled “Golden Incest Sites!” lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult–child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men’s internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult–child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men’s
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult–Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims’ Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims’ pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims’ pain when he
They couldn’t show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I’d give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes “a video of a ‘girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her” (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
“The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl’s
smile as evidence of her consent” (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that “most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior” (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These “flase belief-systems” (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children “that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong” (Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children “consented to the actions,” or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be “consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it” (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that “[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative”
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography “enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality” (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe “that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child” (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284–285).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult–child sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult– child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled “Golden Incest Sites!” lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult–child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men’s internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult–child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men’s
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult–Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims’ Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims’ pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims’ pain when he
They couldn’t show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I’d give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes “a video of a ‘girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her” (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
“The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl’s
smile as evidence of her consent” (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that “most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior” (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These “flase belief-systems” (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children “that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong” (Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children “consented to the actions,” or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be “consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it” (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that “[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative”
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography “enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality” (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe “that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child” (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284–285).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

That is simply the opinion of a pedophile sex predator with no data
to back it up
:)

There are *extensive* references,experimental evidence and both
quantitative and qualitative analyses..

I guess you just don't know how follow references..or do you expect
raw data in the book?

You hold all of these opinions do you not?

Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
commonly held by pedophiles:

1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.

2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”

3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.

4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.

5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.

6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.

7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
--

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:00 -0800, Tim Merrigan <***@ca.rr.com> wrote:

Picture ID <Loading Image...+453>

Post by XXX
Six of one half a dozen of the other. I kind of like the image of a
toddler dressed up all sexy, with a thong or crotchless panties. But
I also like the image of her completely innocent/ignorant accidental
or even deliberate exposures.

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult–child sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult– child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled “Golden Incest Sites!” lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult–child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men’s internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult–child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men’s
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult–Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims’ Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims’ pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims’ pain when he
They couldn’t show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I’d give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes “a video of a ‘girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her” (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
“The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl’s
smile as evidence of her consent” (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult–Child Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that “most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior” (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These “flase belief-systems” (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children “that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong” (Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children “consented to the actions,” or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be “consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it” (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that “[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative”
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography “enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality” (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe “that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child” (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284–285).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

That is simply the opinion of a pedophile sex predator with no data
to back it up
:)

Are you saying that it is my "opinion" that there is no data presented in
your

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
There are *extensive* references,experimental evidence and both
quantitative and qualitative analyses..

references are not data. There is no reference to experimental evidence.
Where is the quantitative analyses (and, by the way, qualitative
researchdoes not have analyses)?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
I guess you just don't know how follow references..or do you expect
raw data in the book?

I don't need the raw data, but where are the statisitics? How many people
were studied?? How did they chose the participants???

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You hold all of these opinions do you not?

My opinions are always labeled as opinion. I don't pretent that they are
research. On the other hand, I HAVE posted plenty of peer reviewed,
quantitative research.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths

----------------------------
Those are not distorted or mythological anything.
Those are your defective and reactionary opinions.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.

--------------------------
Of course not, and etc.
Steve

[Frank McCoy]

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult?hild sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult?child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled ?olden Incest Sites!?lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult?hild sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men? internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult?hild sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men?
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult?hild Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims?Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims?pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims?pain when he
They couldn? show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I? give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes ? video of a ?irl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her?(cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
?he pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl?
smile as evidence of her consent?(Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that ?ost sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior?(LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These ?lase belief-systems?(Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children ?hat the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong?(Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There? nothing wrong with adult?hild sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means ?hey?e
asking for it.?
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it? fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don? tell anyone about being molested, can? be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn? want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children ?onsented to the actions,?or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be ?onsensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it?(Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that ?l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative?
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography ?nables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality?(p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe ?hat both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child?(Wyre, 1990, pp. 284?85).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men?
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult?hild sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult?child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled ?olden Incest Sites!?lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult?hild sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men? internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult?hild sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men?
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult?hild Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims?Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims?pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims?pain when he
They couldn? show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I? give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes ? video of a ?irl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her?(cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
?he pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl?
smile as evidence of her consent?(Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that ?ost sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior?(LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These ?lase belief-systems?(Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children ?hat the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong?(Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There? nothing wrong with adult?hild sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means ?hey?e
asking for it.?
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it? fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don? tell anyone about being molested, can? be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn? want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children ?onsented to the actions,?or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be ?onsensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it?(Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that ?l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative?
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography ?nables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality?(p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe ?hat both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child?(Wyre, 1990, pp. 284?85).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men?
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

but thanks for outing yourself..


http://www.ipce.info/

Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation"[37])
is a leading activist site.


____________________________________________________________

Summary and Conclusion


Overinclusive definitions of abuse that encompass both willing sexual
experiences accompanied by positive reactions and coerced sexual
experiences with negative reactions produce poor predictive validity.

To achieve better scientific validity, a more thoughtful approach is
needed by researchers when labeling and categorizing events that have
heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA

( Fishman, 1991 ; Kilpatrick, 1987 ;Okami, 1994 ; Rind & Bauserman,
1993 ).

One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with
findings in the current review and withsuggestions offered by
Constantine (1981) , is to focus on the young person's perception of
his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the
experience.

A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply
adult -child sex, a value-neutral term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is *NOTHING* value-neutral about adults having sex with
children..

and there is nothing value neutral about Bauserman et al

1989: Bauserman's first scholarly publication "Man-Boy Sexual
Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective." was published in
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia.

The stated purpose of the journal is to legitimize pedophilia (see
"Statement of Purpose," [1987]. Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, 1,
pp, 2-3 ).

The paper consists of a historical examination of the function of
man-boy sexual relationships. Bauserman (1989) concludes that these
relationships have traditionally provided boys with positive male role
models and teachers.

December 18, 1998: Rind and Bauserman are keynote speakers at
pedophile advocacy conference titled "The Other Side of the Coin."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive
reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled
scientifically as adult-adolescent sex
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile back in the real world it is a sex crime and they are sex
criminals...

"The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of
ourselves as paedophiles. . . .


But to speak today of paedophilia, which we understand to be
consensual intergenerational sexual relationships, is to speak of the
politics of oppression. . . . This is the milieu in which we are
enmeshed, the fabric of our daily life and struggle. . . .

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." ("Statement of Purpose," [1987]. Paidika: The
Journal of Pedophilia, 1 , pp. 2-3)

[Frank McCoy]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.

http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1

It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.

Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE the
original report and draw your own opinion.

OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.

Still, I say don't listen to either one:
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

That somebody who has an agenda supplies a host for the information
doesn't make the report false, any more than the American Nazi Party
having a copy of the Constitution on *their* website makes it invalid.

Attacking somebody for where they find information, or the information
itself for where it happens to be easy to found, is a common fallacy.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1
It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.
Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE the
original report and draw your own opinion.
OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.


Subject: Controversy Regarding APA Journal Article
From: Ray Fowler, Ph.D.


Several months after the article was published, the Web site of NAMBLA
(the North American Man-Boy Love Association) publicized the study as
"Good News," misrepresenting it as support for their position in favor
of sexual relations between men and boys.


These conclusions have been distorted and misreported by various
groups and media figures who are now claiming that APA is saying that
child sexual abuse is not harmful to children, or that young children
are capable of "consenting" to sex with adults. Of course, APA's
position is just the opposite; child sexual abuse is harmful to
children.

Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior,
and is properly punishable by law.

Post by Frank McCoy
That somebody who has an agenda supplies a host for the information
doesn't make the report false, any more than the American Nazi Party
having a copy of the Constitution on *their* website makes it invalid.

It was made by pedophiles for pedophiles and has been
repudiated..

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106Fr78U3::


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent
article published by the American Psychological Association that
suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might
be positive for children.

Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to
parents by God;

Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is
their sacred duty;

Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from
interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render
necessary assistance;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has held that parents `who
have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are
entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that
responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));

Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of
human survival and society than our children;

Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to
support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families,
and children;

Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in
some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility
through release under professional titles or through professional
organizations;

Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions
they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;

Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of
children a felony;

Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published
by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse
as criminal and harmful to children;

Whereas the American Psychological Association has recently published
a severely flawed study that suggests that sexual relationships
between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might
even be positive for `willing' children;

Whereas `Paidika--the Journal of Pedophilia', a publication advocating
the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an
article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D.
(see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective',
Issue 5); and

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually
exploited children are unable to develop healthy, affectionate
relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunction, and have a
tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 759, n.10 (1982)): Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the study
recently published by the American Psychological Association that
indicates sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children
are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for
`willing' children;

(2) Congress urges the President to likewise reject and condemn, in
the strongest terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations
between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of
mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive,
reprehensible, and punishable by law; and

(3) the Congress encourages competent investigations to continue to
research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology
so that the public and public policymakers may act upon accurate
information.

Post by Frank McCoy
Attacking somebody for where they find information, or the information
itself for where it happens to be easy to found, is a common fallacy.

You expect to be believed that you did not know it was propaganda for
pedophile activists ?


--

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:00 -0800, Tim Merrigan <***@ca.rr.com> wrote:

Picture ID <http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/Pix/p.cgi?2001+0453-03+lasfs245v.jpg+453>

Post by Frank McCoy
Six of one half a dozen of the other. I kind of like the image of a
toddler dressed up all sexy, with a thong or crotchless panties. But
I also like the image of her completely innocent/ignorant accidental
or even deliberate exposures.

[Frank McCoy]

OK ... Let's take your answer case-by-case and item-by-item.
You obviously *don't* check out stuff yourself.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1
It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.
Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE the
original report and draw your own opinion.
OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.
Subject: Controversy Regarding APA Journal Article
From: Ray Fowler, Ph.D.
Several months after the article was published, the Web site of NAMBLA
(the North American Man-Boy Love Association) publicized the study as
"Good News," misrepresenting it as support for their position in favor
of sexual relations between men and boys.

A. As I pointed out before, that people you dislike USE a report like
this for their own aims, does *NOT* make it invalid! Nor does those
people being scum invalidate the research.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
These conclusions have been distorted and misreported by various
groups and media figures who are now claiming that APA is saying that
child sexual abuse is not harmful to children, or that young children
are capable of "consenting" to sex with adults. Of course, APA's
position is just the opposite; child sexual abuse is harmful to
children.
Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior,
and is properly punishable by law.

B. Pedophilia is *NOT* wrong. It's a viewpoint.
C. What's WRONG is child-molestation.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy
That somebody who has an agenda supplies a host for the information
doesn't make the report false, any more than the American Nazi Party
having a copy of the Constitution on *their* website makes it invalid.

It was made by pedophiles for pedophiles and has been
repudiated..
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent
article published by the American Psychological Association that
suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might
be positive for children.
Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to
parents by God;
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is
their sacred duty;
Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from
interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render
necessary assistance;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has held that parents `who
have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are
entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that
responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));
Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of
human survival and society than our children;
Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to
support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families,
and children;
Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in
some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility
through release under professional titles or through professional
organizations;
Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions
they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;
Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of
children a felony;
Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published
by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse
as criminal and harmful to children;
Whereas the American Psychological Association has recently published
a severely flawed study that suggests that sexual relationships
between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might
even be positive for `willing' children;
Whereas `Paidika--the Journal of Pedophilia', a publication advocating
the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an
article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D.
(see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective',
Issue 5); and
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually
exploited children are unable to develop healthy, affectionate
relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunction, and have a
tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 759, n.10 (1982)): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the study
recently published by the American Psychological Association that
indicates sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children
are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for
`willing' children;
(2) Congress urges the President to likewise reject and condemn, in
the strongest terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations
between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of
mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive,
reprehensible, and punishable by law; and
(3) the Congress encourages competent investigations to continue to
research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology
so that the public and public policymakers may act upon accurate
information.

D. A resolution by Congress, based on *religion* and not facts, without
any scientific basis other than their dislike of the possible uses or
interpretation of the results, is *NOT* a valid repudiation!

Congress has about as little *knowledge* of psychiatry and (far more
important in this case) statistical analysis as it has of knot-theory or
Nuclear Physics. That is *not* their expertise!

What Congress is *good* at (and in this case succeeds in doing) is
reacting to PUBLIC OPINION. In Other Words, Congress didn't like the
result; and so moved to suppress it.

The people who *know* about such matters have all agreed that the report
was good science ... Though completely misunderstood by many people
(including most especially those who seek to use it as an excuse for
child-molestation). However, *most* of the objections have been on
either religious grounds (what has *that* to do with Science) or on the
idea that "even if true, it shouldn't be published, because pedophiles
will use it to justify having sex with children."

Not *liking* the results of valid scientific studies should *never* be
the reason for suppressing them.

Yes, there *have* been quit a few *valid* questions raised about the
study ... But almost all have been covered with equally valid *answers*.
Again, I point you to a commentary on both the questions and anwers to
them: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report

Also, NONE of the people making the report, were or are pedophiles.
That known pedophiles *use* the report, does not diminish it's validity.
That however, DOES mean people like you will try all the harder to
suppress the truth.

Strange that: In the USA where FACTS become unimportant in a study if
the result is unpopular. Here we're *supposed* to admire facts,
studies, and science; not personal opinions or who uses the facts.

OTOH, I guess that's WAY too much to really expect.
Look at the Scopes "Monkey Trial" as a good example to the contrary.
;-{

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy
Attacking somebody for where they find information, or the information
itself for where it happens to be easy to found, is a common fallacy.

You expect to be believed that you did not know it was propaganda for
pedophile activists ?

Huh?
That some pedophiles *DO* use it, is no surprise.
That even the US government tries to *suppress knowledge* because
pedophiles *might* and even *do* use such information, is to my notion
abominable, and worse even than the pedophile aims they claim to be
suppressing.

Suppressing knowledge is NEVER good.
(Not to mention counter-productive.)

Notice that nobody has ever really shown the study to be invalid.
The complaints of it's being published have all been because of the use
some people (yes, particularly NAMBLA and others like that) might make
of the data, knowing that it *IS* true.

Now go read the report yourself; and in-particular read the
questions-and-answers URL I gave; and you *might* see that the report
itself really supports neither case: Not the government's for
suppressing it, nor the pedophiles for "consent".

What it *does* say is that "Child Sexual Abuse" and the "harm from that"
has been WAY overblown. That's *mainly* because of the mistake of
*defining* sex as abuse!

Stop defining sex as abuse; and start focusing on *real* abuse (whether
sexual, physical, mental, verbal, or other) and then (of course) abuse
*does* do damage to children. Almost always *sexual abuse* is merely
part of an overall *pattern of abuse*; and not just sex.

Fix the ABUSE part; and you get rid of more than 95% of true sexual
abuse at the same time.

Sadly, people like you (and Congress too) focus primarily on the SEX
part of "sexual abuse" and little or none on the ABUSE part. Thus we
let real ABUSERS go free; while we chase down and punish children for
having sex ... even with themselves. ;-{

Oh yeah: As mentioned *many* times previously (and again statistics bear
this out) the normal child-abuser is *not* some "Dirty Old Man trying to
fuck a child"; but a family member, close friend, or caretaker who
doesn't give a damn about sex per-se; but only about power or hurting
somebody because he/she just doesn't CARE!

Which is why most of what I post, write, and push is about CARING, not
sex. (Not that I really expect it to make much difference to the real
child-abusers that are mostly antisocial people without empathy. Still,
there *are* people on the edge that I *do* hope to influence.)

Not mind, that there aren't enough people doing what you accuse; and
TRYING to make it legal for them to seduce young girls and boys. NAMBLA
being an obvious example of such. There are also plenty of such-minded
people who aren't willing to wait for legality (as they know it isn't
likely to happen) and will do whatever they can that they can get away
with. In most cases however, the people like that are those listed
above: "Uncle Joe" or "Aunt Minnie" who take advantage of their family
position and trust to further their own wants at the expense of others.

That, however, is no excuse for denying young men and women the *right*
to decide for themselves (yes, without being pushed into it or seduced
by older men and women) who-with, when, how, and where they have sex.
Pretending they're sexless "innocent children" long past puberty when
they've in-actuality been having sex for *years* is not only stupid, but
completely counter-productive if the aim is truly to *protect* and not
harm young people.

Telling somebody, especially teenagers, that they can't have sex is like
telling water to flow uphill. *Educating* them about sex, on the other
hand, has been shown to be quite effective in reducing the incidence of
harm when those same teenagers *do* have sex. Reducing pregnancy,
reducing STDs, reducing even mental anguish. Sadly, instead of pushing
genuine sexual education in schools about what sex is, how to protect
yourself, what to expect, diseases, pregnancy, virginity, prophylaxis,
and yes, emotional entanglements, what we GET is religion-based "Just
say No" disinformation that has been proven completely *useless* when it
comes to preventing pregnancy, disease, sexual activity, and yes:
emotional problems after having had sex.

Then we get even more stupid; and try to legislate against the problem
by raising the "Age of Consent" to 18 .....
Sheer religion-based idiocy.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by Frank McCoy
OK ... Let's take your answer case-by-case and item-by-item.
You obviously *don't* check out stuff yourself.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1
It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.
Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE the
original report and draw your own opinion.
OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.
Subject: Controversy Regarding APA Journal Article
From: Ray Fowler, Ph.D.
Several months after the article was published, the Web site of NAMBLA
(the North American Man-Boy Love Association) publicized the study as
"Good News," misrepresenting it as support for their position in favor
of sexual relations between men and boys.

A. As I pointed out before, that people you dislike USE a report like
this for their own aims, does *NOT* make it invalid! Nor does those
people being scum invalidate the research.

You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who published
their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
These conclusions have been distorted and misreported by various
groups and media figures who are now claiming that APA is saying that
child sexual abuse is not harmful to children, or that young children
are capable of "consenting" to sex with adults. Of course, APA's
position is just the opposite; child sexual abuse is harmful to
children.
Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior,
and is properly punishable by law.

B. Pedophilia is *NOT* wrong. It's a viewpoint.

That's the APA position you quote ...

Post by Frank McCoy
C. What's WRONG is child-molestation.

IMHO a child molester is simply a pedophile who has been caught.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy
That somebody who has an agenda supplies a host for the information
doesn't make the report false, any more than the American Nazi Party
having a copy of the Constitution on *their* website makes it invalid.

It was made by pedophiles for pedophiles and has been
repudiated..
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent
article published by the American Psychological Association that
suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might
be positive for children.
Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to
parents by God;
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is
their sacred duty;
Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from
interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render
necessary assistance;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has held that parents `who
have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are
entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that
responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));
Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of
human survival and society than our children;
Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to
support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families,
and children;
Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in
some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility
through release under professional titles or through professional
organizations;
Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions
they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;
Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of
children a felony;
Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published
by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse
as criminal and harmful to children;
Whereas the American Psychological Association has recently published
a severely flawed study that suggests that sexual relationships
between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might
even be positive for `willing' children;
Whereas `Paidika--the Journal of Pedophilia', a publication advocating
the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an
article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D.
(see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective',
Issue 5); and
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually
exploited children are unable to develop healthy, affectionate
relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunction, and have a
tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 759, n.10 (1982)): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the study
recently published by the American Psychological Association that
indicates sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children
are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for
`willing' children;
(2) Congress urges the President to likewise reject and condemn, in
the strongest terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations
between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of
mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive,
reprehensible, and punishable by law; and
(3) the Congress encourages competent investigations to continue to
research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology
so that the public and public policymakers may act upon accurate
information.

D. A resolution by Congress, based on *religion* and not facts, without
any scientific basis other than their dislike of the possible uses or
interpretation of the results, is *NOT* a valid repudiation!

Scientists were equally horrified ..

Post by Frank McCoy
Congress has about as little *knowledge* of psychiatry and (far more
important in this case) statistical analysis as it has of knot-theory or
Nuclear Physics. That is *not* their expertise!
What Congress is *good* at (and in this case succeeds in doing) is
reacting to PUBLIC OPINION. In Other Words, Congress didn't like the
result; and so moved to suppress it.
The people who *know* about such matters have all agreed that the report
was good science ... Though completely misunderstood by many people
(including most especially those who seek to use it as an excuse for
child-molestation). However, *most* of the objections have been on
either religious grounds (what has *that* to do with Science) or on the
idea that "even if true, it shouldn't be published, because pedophiles
will use it to justify having sex with children."
Not *liking* the results of valid scientific studies should *never* be
the reason for suppressing them.

It wasn't a scientific study but an attempt to re-interpret scientific
studies.

Post by Frank McCoy
Yes, there *have* been quit a few *valid* questions raised about the
study ... But almost all have been covered with equally valid *answers*.
Again, I point you to a commentary on both the questions and anwers to
them: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
Also, NONE of the people making the report, were or are pedophiles.
That known pedophiles *use* the report, does not diminish it's validity.
That however, DOES mean people like you will try all the harder to
suppress the truth.

Again you gloss over the glaring fact that the study was made by
pedophiles for the express purpose providing a basis for attempting to
legalize adult child sex.

Post by Frank McCoy
Strange that: In the USA where FACTS become unimportant in a study if
the result is unpopular. Here we're *supposed* to admire facts,
studies, and science; not personal opinions or who uses the facts.

but they are not facts but pedospin on others research..

Post by Frank McCoy
OTOH, I guess that's WAY too much to really expect.
Look at the Scopes "Monkey Trial" as a good example to the contrary.
;-{

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy
Attacking somebody for where they find information, or the information
itself for where it happens to be easy to found, is a common fallacy.

You expect to be believed that you did not know it was propaganda for
pedophile activists ?

Huh?
That some pedophiles *DO* use it, is no surprise.

No...pedophiles *produced it* for a pedophile activist journal.

It is not the only "study" they produced to sing the praises of
sodomizing children was it?

Post by Frank McCoy
That even the US government tries to *suppress knowledge* because
pedophiles *might* and even *do* use such information, is to my notion
abominable, and worse even than the pedophile aims they claim to be
suppressing.
Suppressing knowledge is NEVER good.
(Not to mention counter-productive.)

I agree and the fact that you can post from the library of the
International Pedophile and Child Emancipation Group proves it.

Post by Frank McCoy
Notice that nobody has ever really shown the study to be invalid.
The complaints of it's being published have all been because of the use
some people (yes, particularly NAMBLA and others like that) might make
of the data, knowing that it *IS* true.

It was pedo propaganda from the get go..from the producers of a
continuous stream of propaganda

Post by Frank McCoy
Now go read the report yourself; and in-particular read the
questions-and-answers URL I gave; and you *might* see that the report
itself really supports neither case: Not the government's for
suppressing it, nor the pedophiles for "consent".

The summary is quite clear and is why you posted it.
These pedophiles claim that adults having sex with children is not
abuse if the children "consent".

Post by Frank McCoy
What it *does* say is that "Child Sexual Abuse" and the "harm from that"
has been WAY overblown. That's *mainly* because of the mistake of
*defining* sex as abuse!

Adults having sex is abuse..no matter how much the abuser may claim
the child "wanted it".

Post by Frank McCoy
Stop defining sex as abuse; and start focusing on *real* abuse (whether
sexual, physical, mental, verbal, or other) and then (of course) abuse
*does* do damage to children. Almost always *sexual abuse* is merely
part of an overall *pattern of abuse*; and not just sex.
Fix the ABUSE part; and you get rid of more than 95% of true sexual
abuse at the same time.
Sadly, people like you (and Congress too) focus primarily on the SEX
part of "sexual abuse" and little or none on the ABUSE part. Thus we
let real ABUSERS go free; while we chase down and punish children for
having sex ... even with themselves. ;-{
Oh yeah: As mentioned *many* times previously (and again statistics bear
this out) the normal child-abuser is *not* some "Dirty Old Man trying to
fuck a child"; but a family member, close friend, or caretaker who
doesn't give a damn about sex per-se; but only about power or hurting
somebody because he/she just doesn't CARE!

Sure..Part of the pedophile process is for the predator to *become* a
family friend..

The parents(often single parent) is groomed as much as the child..

Post by Frank McCoy
Which is why most of what I post, write, and push is about CARING, not
sex. (Not that I really expect it to make much difference to the real
child-abusers that are mostly antisocial people without empathy. Still,
there *are* people on the edge that I *do* hope to influence.)

I do accept you are different that some of the others in your child
pornography ring who try to excite folk with visions of babies and
toddlers being raped ,tortured and forced to eat excrement etc..

Post by Frank McCoy
Not mind, that there aren't enough people doing what you accuse; and
TRYING to make it legal for them to seduce young girls and boys. NAMBLA
being an obvious example of such. There are also plenty of such-minded
people who aren't willing to wait for legality (as they know it isn't
likely to happen) and will do whatever they can that they can get away
with. In most cases however, the people like that are those listed
above: "Uncle Joe" or "Aunt Minnie" who take advantage of their family
position and trust to further their own wants at the expense of others.
That, however, is no excuse for denying young men and women the *right*
to decide for themselves

Agreed..if they ARE young men and woman and not eleven year old
children...or has been insanely suggested babies..

Post by Frank McCoy
(yes, without being pushed into it or seduced
by older men and women) who-with, when, how, and where they have sex.
Pretending they're sexless "innocent children" long past puberty when
they've in-actuality been having sex for *years* is not only stupid, but
completely counter-productive if the aim is truly to *protect* and not
harm young people.

I totally agree..

Post by Frank McCoy
Telling somebody, especially teenagers, that they can't have sex is like
telling water to flow uphill. *Educating* them about sex, on the other
hand, has been shown to be quite effective in reducing the incidence of
harm when those same teenagers *do* have sex. Reducing pregnancy,
reducing STDs, reducing even mental anguish. Sadly, instead of pushing
genuine sexual education in schools about what sex is, how to protect
yourself, what to expect, diseases, pregnancy, virginity, prophylaxis,
and yes, emotional entanglements, what we GET is religion-based "Just
say No" disinformation that has been proven completely *useless* when it
emotional problems after having had sex.

Absolutely and I am totally in favor of "Romeo and Juliet" Amendments

But this is a far cry from the glorification of sex with infants and
toddlers..is it not?

Post by Frank McCoy
Then we get even more stupid; and try to legislate against the problem
by raising the "Age of Consent" to 18 .....
Sheer religion-based idiocy.
The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

--

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:00 -0800, Tim Merrigan <***@ca.rr.com> wrote:

Picture ID <http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/Pix/p.cgi?2001+0453-03+lasfs245v.jpg+453>

Post by Frank McCoy
Six of one half a dozen of the other. I kind of like the image of a
toddler dressed up all sexy, with a thong or crotchless panties. But
I also like the image of her completely innocent/ignorant accidental
or even deliberate exposures.

[Frank McCoy]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who published
their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

They didn't.
They were NOT pedophiles (and still are not); and they published their
research in a rather "normal" psychiatric and peer-reiveiwed journal ...
Where they really expected it to be ignored; since the journal usually
was read by only a small number of equally high-brow and limited number
of professional psychiatrists.

The work was reviewed *and accepted* by others, including the American
Medical Association; and then lay pretty much unnoticed for *months*.

Only: Somebody later read the article and objected to *publishing the
results*, *NOT* the accuracy of them, mind. That objection was then
passed to newspapers, and eventually made a stink in Congress, who then,
knowing nothing about the article except what they were told, passed a
resolution condemning its publication!

The article *ONLY* made its way to pedophile organizations and such
AFTER the big stink in Washington!

And now, of course, the only websites that carry the full and complete
original document seem to be ones with axes to grind.

Like I said, it's a damned shame when valid research gets suppressed
because people don't like the result. But that, of course, is nothing
new. Look at Galileo, or the Scopes debacle.

With the Internet, of course, it's hard to *completely* suppress
material; because people WILL post it, and yes, use it for their own
ends. And no, I don't really expect Religious organizations or other
people who object to the results to post or even post links to the REAL
article so others can see it ... Most especially not, if they know it's
valid and peer-reviewed research. Would you?

That would rather be like Moslems posting the content of the Torah.
They may even count the base-documents as source for their own beliefs;
but let anybody SEE the actual words? Not a chance.

Same here.
Rather like trying to find a copy of "Das Kapital" during the McCarthy
era or finding Martin Luther's list of objections in Spain during the
Inquisition. They certainly aren't going to publish what they're trying
to suppress!

And your complaining that I find a pedophile group as "source" is just
as idiotic, because the opposition is doing it's best to suppress any
knowledge of the actual paper itself. They don't want people to *KNOW*
what it actually says. Never mind that it's accurate. That especially,
they don't want people to know.

Note: Look however hard you might, but you *won't* find any
*professional* articles complaining about the *accuracy* of the report.
What you *will* find is many people damning it because they don't like
the *results*; and are afraid (with some validity) that it will be used
as an excuse for child-molesters.

I suppose you agree with that: Suppressing REAL research and the results
of same, because it doesn't agree with what you WANT the results to be?

That, after all, is what's happening and has happened.

[Frank McCoy]

July 1998: Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman's paper "A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College
Samples" is published in the Psychological Bulletin, the leading
scientific journal of the American Psychological Association. (Full
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm)

Uhuh ... A *peer reviewed journal* of the APA.
The "leading scientific journal" of that organization, NOT a pedophile
group.
That it's available only on the ipce website ...

Well, that just shows that people are trying to suppress the results.

Also note: It hasn't been found flawed yet, after several years of
trying. Only the *results* have been objected to; not the actual
testing.

[Baal]

On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
in Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>,
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

On Monday 07 January 2008 02:06, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
in Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>,
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who published
their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

Are you willing to stand behind your /libellous/ words, Brandon?

I invite you to post your real contact information--for purposes of legal
service. I will forward that to Drs. Rind, Bauserman et al. along with
unexpurgated copies of the posts in which you accuse them of being
pedophiles.

This is, after all, an _international_ forum, with posts being accessible
throughout the English-speaking world. The libel laws of Canada and the
United Kingdom are quite harsh, to name just two jurisdictions.

Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:56:29 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

On Monday 07 January 2008 02:06, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who published
their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

Are you willing to stand behind your /libellous/ words, Brandon?

That it is true trumps slander libel and slander allegations in any
jurisdiction..


http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html


Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman's Writings

"The historical approach to understanding of scientific fact is what
differentiates the scholar in science from the mere experimenter."
--E. G. Boring

Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman's 1998 meta-analysis was built on the
foundation of the authors' previous research and writings, some of
which are briefly reviewed below. Also included are writings that came
after the meta-analysis which appear to extend or defend their
conclusions.

A list of full references is available at the end of this document.

1989: Bauserman's first scholarly publication "Man-Boy Sexual
Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective." was published in
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The stated purpose of the journal
is to legitimize pedophilia (see "Statement of Purpose," [1987].
Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, 1, pp, 2-3 ). The paper consists
of a historical examination of th) e function of man-boy sexual
relationships. Bauserman (1989concludes that these relationships have
traditionally provided boys with positive male role models and
teachers.

1990: Bauserman's second scholarly publication was in The Journal of
Homosexuality's special double issue on "Male Intergenerational
Intimacy. " The special issue is edited by three members of Paidika's
editorial board. Bauserman's paper criticized those who believe that
sexual relationships between men and boys "are by their very nature
abusive and exploitive" or that "the younger partner is automatically
incapable of consent" (p. 310). Bauserman also argued against the use
of the "value-laden" terms and called for a new "scientific
objectivity" in research on adult-child sex (p. 311).



Paidika is a Dutch journal which provides a forum for scholarly
articles defending pedophilia. A multi-disciplinary coalition of
academicians from the United States and Europe sit on its advisory
board.

In the journal's first issue, the editors outlined their goals:
"The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of
ourselves as paedophiles. . . .



http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm)

September 1998: The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation
(IPCE) newsletter [see link 14] includes an announcement for a Dutch
conference titled "De Andere Kant van de Medaille" or "The Other Side
of the Coin." Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman are listed as the
keynote speakers. The purpose of the conference is to shed light on
the positive side of sex between adults and children.

Excerpt from announcement: "Today it is hard to imagine, but less than
twenty years ago sexuality between youth and adults was being written
and spoken about almost exclusively in positive terms. . . . Presently
narratives and theories about sexual abuse totally dominate the scene
when it comes to sexuality in which children and youth are involved. .
. . In order to throw light onto this other side of the coin again,
after so long a time, the church-based Kerkelijk Sociale Arbeid
(Church Social Work) foundation in Rotterdam is organizing a study
conference to which the American psychologists Bruce Rind and Robert
Bauserman have been invited as key speakers. (Dr. Rind has confirmed
his presence.) Bauserman and Rind have distinguished themselves in
professional circles in recent years by their publication of
meta-analyses, research into sexuological research. Their most
startling conclusion: from nearly all available research it appears
that among males who have had sexual experiences with adults during
their youth, a majority look back upon these experiences as positive
or neutral, and that they experienced no demonstrable, lasting
damage." Full text of the announcement. The Other Side of the Coin.
(September 1998). IPCE (International Pedophile and Child
Emancipation) Newsletter, Number E3, link 14.

December 18, 1998: Rind and Bauserman are keynote speakers at
pedophile advocacy conference titled "The Other Side of the Coin."
(see above)

[Baal]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Friday 11 January 2008 02:48, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:56:29 +0100 (CET), Baal

Post by Baal
On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

None of the website content you re-published proves the statement that
you made above, to wit: "...that Rind and Bauserman *WERE* active pedophiles
campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking."

N.B.: The key words here are: "active pedophiles."

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Baal
On Monday 07 January 2008 02:06, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who
published their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

Are you willing to stand behind your /libellous/ words, Brandon?

My challenge still stands--are you willing to stand behind your libellous
characterization of: "...Rind and Bauserman *WERE* active pedophiles
campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking."?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
That it is true trumps slander libel and slander allegations in any
jurisdiction..

That /is/ precisely the point, isn't it? If you believe your words to be
true, why not afford the men you have defamed an opportunity to contest
the issue in a court of law? Post your address for legal service. (You can
even use my PGP key if you don't wish to post it openly--my key is
included at the end of this posting.)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html

It would appear that nothing in this web page proves your allegation.

The assertion that the mere publication in a so-called 'pedophile'
publication makes them pedophiles, is about as valid a characterization
as saying that posting in alt.support.boy-lovers makes you a boy-lover.

Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEUAwUBR4cvXAjjY4weksDoAQpu9gf2JArvChSgQ3u5Wc7Ud08tm1a1ssGvoEwH
vlf3c7p1FUxfTftRLUtAvJ0ZarzkspQfrG506upWFKXEVCngg0uUkqfhv3UmhOxv
UJ+ETxGcGESu6NOndCUKZ2rMvkGPDPRcgZttyIPTCLJxtzj9CYgTFxkpVCOfqk/L
RU/opz+wO+uZ7tcZJBj1IcxcuwhLN3MhaN8A0dbwUoOXrHvR8FqiWNHkHXJwmFTb
BHPIB21igEnY9X8duTo+DI1sEjj8bvQOu/npExuqvUs/vUDZFVjtN03YWyT/RRrL
FrD9DmF67D34+vzFN/tjTng4IyPAlJ8TRcIBF+oVIMxyrg+tfTmp
=HIFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=5z62
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:20:42 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Friday 11 January 2008 02:48, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:56:29 +0100 (CET), Baal

Post by Baal
On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

None of the website content you re-published proves the statement that
you made above, to wit: "...that Rind and Bauserman *WERE* active pedophiles
campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking."
N.B.: The key words here are: "active pedophiles."

Obviously you have perceptual problems then..

In the journal's first issue, the editors outlined their goals:

"The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of
ourselves as pedophiles. . . .


seems clear enough..

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Baal
On Monday 07 January 2008 02:06, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who
published their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.

Are you willing to stand behind your /libellous/ words, Brandon?

My challenge still stands--are you willing to stand behind your libellous
characterization of: "...Rind and Bauserman *WERE* active pedophiles
campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking."?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
That it is true trumps slander libel and slander allegations in any
jurisdiction..

That /is/ precisely the point, isn't it? If you believe your words to be
true, why not afford the men you have defamed an opportunity to contest
the issue in a court of law? Post your address for legal service. (You can
even use my PGP key if you don't wish to post it openly--my key is
included at the end of this posting.)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html

It would appear that nothing in this web page proves your allegation.
The assertion that the mere publication in a so-called 'pedophile'
publication makes them pedophiles, is about as valid a characterization
as saying that posting in alt.support.boy-lovers makes you a boy-lover.

But they didn't "merely publish"..

They were on the editorial board and gave keynote speeches..

--

December 2007
- There is a delusion that pedophiles are under which
is insane at the very best.They claim they are "persecuted"
and "oppressed," the same way blacks, gays, jews and women
have been maltreated over the centuries.

They would like to ride on the margins of these other
minorities in order to garner sympathy from those
minorities, and to use the history of the emmancipation
of these minorities as precedence for their own freedom
to have sex with children.


They forget one thing: Pedophiles are seen with disdain
and disgust, not because they are different, but because
they cause harm to other human beings.

http://wikisposure.com/The_Persecution_Delusion

[Baal]

On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
in Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>,
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For which the APA was bitterly condemned and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

On Monday 07 January 2008 02:06, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
in Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>,
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

[snip]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
You gloss over the fact that the authors were pedophiles who published
their secondary research in a pedophile activist journal;.
No...pedophiles *produced it* for a pedophile activist journal.
It is not the only "study" they produced to sing the praises of
sodomizing children was it?

Brandon, I think you've really gone beyond the pale, here. It's one
thing to sling barbs and hurl epithets in here at pseudonymous identities
(such as mine); it's quite another to make libellous statements about
real-life people.

Are you willing to stand behind your libellous words, Brandon? Are you
prepared to back them up with evidence in a court of law?

I challenge you to post your real contact information--for purposes of
legal service. I will forward that to Drs. Rind, Bauserman et al. along
with unexpurgated copies of the posts in which you accuse them of being
pedophiles.

This is, after all, an _international_ forum, with posts being accessible
throughout the English-speaking world. The libel laws of Canada and the
United Kingdom are quite harsh, to name just two jurisdictions.

Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- - --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1
It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.
Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE the
original report and draw your own opinion.
OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

For which the APA was bitterly condemned

Wow, you mean just like Galileo and Copernicus? You fucked up "Christians"
have always tried to silence science. Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! I wish
someone would line you all up and mow down your ignorant asses with a
machine gun!!!

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
and it is quite clear that Dr
Fowler was unaware that Rind and Bauserman *WERE*
active pedophiles campaigning for the legalization of Kiddie fucking.

There has never been any evidence that Rind or Bauserman are pedophiles.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Subject: Controversy Regarding APA Journal Article
From: Ray Fowler, Ph.D.
Several months after the article was published, the Web site of NAMBLA
(the North American Man-Boy Love Association) publicized the study as
"Good News," misrepresenting it as support for their position in favor
of sexual relations between men and boys.
These conclusions have been distorted and misreported by various
groups and media figures who are now claiming that APA is saying that
child sexual abuse is not harmful to children, or that young children
are capable of "consenting" to sex with adults. Of course, APA's
position is just the opposite; child sexual abuse is harmful to
children.
Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior,
and is properly punishable by law.

Post by Frank McCoy
That somebody who has an agenda supplies a host for the information
doesn't make the report false, any more than the American Nazi Party
having a copy of the Constitution on *their* website makes it invalid.

It was made by pedophiles for pedophiles and has been
repudiated..
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent
article published by the American Psychological Association that
suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might
be positive for children.
Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to
parents by God;

Fuck you and fuck your God!

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is
their sacred duty;
Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from
interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render
necessary assistance;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has held that parents `who
have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are
entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that
responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));
Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of
human survival and society than our children;
Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to
support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families,
and children;
Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in
some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility
through release under professional titles or through professional
organizations;
Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions
they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;
Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of
children a felony;
Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published
by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse
as criminal and harmful to children;
Whereas the American Psychological Association has recently published
a severely flawed study that suggests that sexual relationships
between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might
even be positive for `willing' children;
Whereas `Paidika--the Journal of Pedophilia', a publication advocating
the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an
article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D.
(see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective',
Issue 5); and
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually
exploited children are unable to develop healthy, affectionate
relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunction, and have a
tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 759, n.10 (1982)): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the study
recently published by the American Psychological Association that
indicates sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children
are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for
`willing' children;
(2) Congress urges the President to likewise reject and condemn, in
the strongest terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations
between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of
mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive,
reprehensible, and punishable by law; and
(3) the Congress encourages competent investigations to continue to
research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology
so that the public and public policymakers may act upon accurate
information.

Post by Frank McCoy
Attacking somebody for where they find information, or the information
itself for where it happens to be easy to found, is a common fallacy.

You expect to be believed that you did not know it was propaganda for
pedophile activists ?

[ThePsyko]

On 07 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and heard

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:06:48 -0600, Frank McCoy

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX
And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

If you *read* the actual report itself, that's NOT what it says.
(Though I'll admit many people *think* so, from what anti-sex people
say.)
Check the data and the evaluation method yourself.
(Or is that too much to ask? You're somebody else's mouthpiece?)

but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

So ... OK, I never checked which site hosted the most accessed copy.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182/pg_1
It's almost impossible to find the original report in a website that
doesn't have an axe to grind.
Those who oppose or deny the data, of course don't want you to SEE
the original report and draw your own opinion.
OTOH, those who *do* want you to read the report, as you point out,
generally have their own axes to grind; and are hosting the complete
report only because of those axes.
READ the report yourself.
Check the data; and remember it *was* peer-reviewed.

For which the APA was bitterly condemned

Wow, you mean just like Galileo and Copernicus? You fucked up
"Christians" have always tried to silence science. Jesus Tap-Dancing
Christ! I wish someone would line you all up and mow down your
ignorant asses with a machine gun!!!

aww how cute... poor widdle pedo is angwy!

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult?hild sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult?child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled ?olden Incest Sites!?lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers
who may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience
such desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult?hild sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual
abuse. This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men? internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult?hild sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men?
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult?hild Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims?Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims?pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims?pain when he
They couldn? show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I? give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes ? video of a ?irl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her?(cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
?he pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl?
smile as evidence of her consent?(Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly
had positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the
victim does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of
children would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that ?ost sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior?(LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These ?lase belief-systems?(Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children ?hat the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong?(Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There? nothing wrong with adult?hild sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means ?hey?e
asking for it.?
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex
in a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it? fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don? tell anyone about being molested, can? be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn? want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins
(2001) notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with
children by claiming that children ?onsented to the actions,?or
directly sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117).
These pedophiles consider such experiences to be ?onsensual. Even if
the child is three or five, she was still asking for it?(Jenkins,
2001, p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that ?l]inked to this is the
denial of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and
even educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative?
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography ?nables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality?(p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe ?hat both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child?(Wyre, 1990, pp. 284?85).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men?
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If by *real* you mean trawling through other folk's studies and
re-interpreting them as an apologia for child molesters..I guess so

A meta-analysis is hardly "trawling through other folk's studies". It is a
VERY complex analysis, but you are just too stupid to understand. I bet
you also believe in "Intellegent Design" - Its just too complicated! I
can't understand it so God must have made it!!! You haters are SO fucking
retarded!!!

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
but thanks for outing yourself..
http://www.ipce.info/
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion
about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships
between children or adolescents and adults.

The meta-analysis was originally published in Psychological Bulletin, which
is a very well respected, peer reviewed, scientific journal.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism
Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation"[37])
is a leading activist site.
____________________________________________________________
Summary and Conclusion
Overinclusive definitions of abuse that encompass both willing sexual
experiences accompanied by positive reactions and coerced sexual
experiences with negative reactions produce poor predictive validity.
To achieve better scientific validity, a more thoughtful approach is
needed by researchers when labeling and categorizing events that have
heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA
( Fishman, 1991 ; Kilpatrick, 1987 ;Okami, 1994 ; Rind & Bauserman,
1993 ).
One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with
findings in the current review and withsuggestions offered by
Constantine (1981) , is to focus on the young person's perception of
his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the
experience.
A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply
adult -child sex, a value-neutral term.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
There is *NOTHING* value-neutral about adults having sex with
children..

So says you. The data show otherwise.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
and there is nothing value neutral about Bauserman et al
1989: Bauserman's first scholarly publication "Man-Boy Sexual
Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective." was published in
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia.
The stated purpose of the journal is to legitimize pedophilia (see
"Statement of Purpose," [1987]. Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, 1,
pp, 2-3 ).
The paper consists of a historical examination of the function of
man-boy sexual relationships. Bauserman (1989) concludes that these
relationships have traditionally provided boys with positive male role
models and teachers.
December 18, 1998: Rind and Bauserman are keynote speakers at
pedophile advocacy conference titled "The Other Side of the Coin."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with
positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled
scientifically as adult-adolescent sex
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Meanwhile back in the real world it is a sex crime and they are sex
criminals...
"The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of
ourselves as paedophiles. . . .
But to speak today of paedophilia, which we understand to be
consensual intergenerational sexual relationships, is to speak of the
politics of oppression. . . . This is the milieu in which we are
enmeshed, the fabric of our daily life and struggle. . . .
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." ("Statement of Purpose," [1987]. Paidika: The
Journal of Pedophilia, 1 , pp. 2-3)

It would be so nice if you haters had a brain. Of course, if you thought
on your own you wouldn't be haters.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but more
of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and calling
researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders

http://tinyurl.com/3278d2

It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.

The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--
Pedospeak

Pedospeak is the terminology that pedophiles use when referring to
variants of their lifestyle, with the intent of obscuring the negative
effects of their actions, and achieving legitimacy amongst the general
public. While some pedospeak words are simply abbreviations of terms
commonly used by anyone discussing pedophilia, many of the phrases
betray a clear attempt to twist the existing terminology in their
favor. By changing the language typically used to denote the sexual
abuse of children, they hope to portray this abuse in a more benign
light.

Pedophiles use such terms as "Child Lover," "Minor-Attracted Adult,"
"Girl Lover, "Boy Lover," etc., to describe themselves. Many resent
use of the word "pedophile" because they view it as a hated word. They
discuss about how, in history, and in some other countries, it's
accepted for adults to have sex with minors. The goal of pedospeak is
to trick people into thinking that they're harmless, and to become
more acceptable to society.

http://wikisposure.com/Pedospeak

[Baal]

On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....

Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community

July 3, 1999

Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242

Dear Dr. Fowler:

We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
considerations. We would like to make the following points:

(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.

(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.

(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.

We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.

Warmest regards,

Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS

Also signed by:

Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research

*****

July 15, 1999

Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002

Gentlemen:

As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.

Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.

But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.

Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.

Obviously outraged,

Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.

http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

So, Brandon, are you going to libel all the above people as well?


Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)

They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/KinseyFilm.pdf

In researching Kinsey’s sex materials, Dr.
Reisman discovered Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male.

This table describes the orgasms of children who
were used in his sex experiments.


As Reisman dug further, she found that Kinsey had used
pedophiles, including a Nazi, to molest these children. On
pages 160-161 of his book, he describes how these children
screamed, convulsed, and engaged in hysterical weeping as
they were sexually abused to measure their orgasms.



In addition, Kinsey devotees established and still run the Society
for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSSS), which provides accrediting
credentials for sex educators throughout the U.S.


One of the original members of the SSSS accrediting committee
is Dr. Vern L. Bullough, who wrote the foreword for the
Dutch pedophile book, Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study Of
Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males. Bullough is active
in promoting the homosexual agenda.


Kinsey’s materials are routinely used by pedophiles to promote
the view that children are sexual beings and must be introduced
early into sexual experiences with adults.

NAMBLA, for example, says that Kinsey’s research “supports the
struggle we fight today.” (Dr. Reisman, “The O’Reilly Factor,”
February 11,2003)

Kinsey associate Wardell Pomeroy, has written that
adult/child sex can be “loving, thoughtful and responsible.”
(Robert Eady, “Adult-Child sexual relationships next?”
Catholic Insight, June, 1993)

So, Brandon, are you going to libel all the above people as well?

No libel is neccessary their words speak for themselves

<http://books.google.com/books?id=4jc2AAAAMAAJ&q=Leonore+Tiefer+pedophile&dq=Leonore+Tiefer+pedophile&pgis=1>

"Instead of speaking in terms of "victim", "offender" and sexual
assaults which is still the usual way in scientific writing to refer
to pedophilia,this research approaches pedophile relationships as
simply another form of relationships children can have"


http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/sex_sci43-2.htm#pres


In 1990 about two dozen of us contributed to a book on pedophilia
edited by Jay Feierman (Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, 1990,
Springer-Verlag: New York.) The book contained chapters which covered
some of the most controversial areas within our field. Authors
explored aspects of cross-generational sex and presented data from
animal and human societies.

The writings offered different perspectives on the topic and even
included a chapter by an admitted pedophile.

The book was one of the outcomes of a conference financed by The
Servants of the Paraclete, a Roman Catholic religious order in one of
their positive attempts to find ways of dealing with a problem they
recognized in society as well as their Church.

As we have heard in regard to recent books and articles covering
topics related to the sexual practices or activities involving
children (e.g., J. Levine's book "Harmful to Minors") we might be
under scrutiny and castigated for our interests and efforts.

[Zee]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/KinseyFilm.pdf
In researching Kinsey's sex materials, Dr.
Reisman discovered Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male.
This table describes the orgasms of children who
were used in his sex experiments.
As Reisman dug further, she found that Kinsey had used
pedophiles, including a Nazi, to molest these children. On
pages 160-161 of his book, he describes how these children
screamed, convulsed, and engaged in hysterical weeping as
they were sexually abused to measure their orgasms.
In addition, Kinsey devotees established and still run the Society
for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSSS), which provides accrediting
credentials for sex educators throughout the U.S.
One of the original members of the SSSS accrediting committee
is Dr. Vern L. Bullough, who wrote the foreword for the
Dutch pedophile book, Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study Of
Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males. Bullough is active
in promoting the homosexual agenda.
Kinsey's materials are routinely used by pedophiles to promote
the view that children are sexual beings and must be introduced
early into sexual experiences with adults.
NAMBLA, for example, says that Kinsey's research "supports the
struggle we fight today." (Dr. Reisman, "The O'Reilly Factor,"
February 11,2003)
Kinsey associate Wardell Pomeroy, has written that
adult/child sex can be "loving, thoughtful and responsible."
(Robert Eady, "Adult-Child sexual relationships next?"
Catholic Insight, June, 1993)

So, Brandon, are you going to libel all the above people as well?

No libel is neccessary their words speak for themselves
<http://books.google.com/books?id=4jc2AAAAMAAJ&q=Leonore+Tiefer+pedoph...>
"Instead of speaking in terms of "victim", "offender" and sexual
assaults which is still the usual way in scientific writing to refer
to pedophilia,this research approaches pedophile relationships as
simply another form of relationships children can have"
http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/sex_sci43-2.htm#pres
In 1990 about two dozen of us contributed to a book on pedophilia
edited by Jay Feierman (Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, 1990,
Springer-Verlag: New York.) The book contained chapters which covered
some of the most controversial areas within our field. Authors
explored aspects of cross-generational sex and presented data from
animal and human societies.
The writings offered different perspectives on the topic and even
included a chapter by an admitted pedophile.
The book was one of the outcomes of a conference financed by The
Servants of the Paraclete, a Roman Catholic religious order in one of
their positive attempts to find ways of dealing with a problem they
recognized in society as well as their Church.
As we have heard in regard to recent books and articles covering
topics related to the sexual practices or activities involving
children (e.g., J. Levine's book "Harmful to Minors") we might be
under scrutiny and castigated for our interests and efforts.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

a short note to acknowledge that social nudism is the best lab to view
the child in freedom of expression as they perform
sexually....masturbation and exhibitionism....especially while staring
at adult genitals...coaxing or scripting the behavior of sexual
activities is a sick way of so called professionals to examine child
sex behavior...imo....jz

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>

Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be
listened to, no matter how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon,
of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with anyone who doesn't tow
Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be listened to, no matter
how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon, of course, has not).
Only those who agree with Brandon and his hater line should be listened to,
no matter who much they use opinion as "fact" and "evidence". That way
only one side of any issue can be presented and all of the "facts" are on
their side. It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>
Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be
listened to, no matter how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon,
of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with anyone who doesn't tow
Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be listened to, no matter
how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon, of course, has not).
Only those who agree with Brandon and his hater line should be listened to,
no matter who much they use opinion as "fact" and "evidence". That way
only one side of any issue can be presented and all of the "facts" are on
their side.
It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

Odd then that *YOU* have snipped the rebuttal and facts about SSSS
and Leonore Tiefer leaving a one sided presentation isn't it?
--
Pedospeak

Pedospeak is the terminology that pedophiles use when referring to
variants of their lifestyle, with the intent of obscuring the negative
effects of their actions, and achieving legitimacy amongst the general
public. While some pedospeak words are simply abbreviations of terms
commonly used by anyone discussing pedophilia, many of the phrases
betray a clear attempt to twist the existing terminology in their
favor. By changing the language typically used to denote the sexual
abuse of children, they hope to portray this abuse in a more benign
light.

Pedophiles use such terms as "Child Lover," "Minor-Attracted Adult,"
"Girl Lover, "Boy Lover," etc., to describe themselves. Many resent
use of the word "pedophile" because they view it as a hated word. They
discuss about how, in history, and in some other countries, it's
accepted for adults to have sex with minors. The goal of pedospeak is
to trick people into thinking that they're harmless, and to become
more acceptable to society.

http://wikisposure.com/Pedospeak

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing
but more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around,
equivocating, and calling researchers pedophiles if they came to
conclusions he doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the
others against free speech to stop all open debate. open
discussion is the last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than
attack the data or discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and
who, in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if
they had bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological
Association to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind
(Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information.
Theorists and sexual science researchers can make a unique
contribution. Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide
a fair and objective analysis of social phenomena and provide
scientific information--both qualitative and quantitative--based
on the highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have
taken the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress
how peer review works and is an inviolable bulwark against
prejudice and bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an
excellent new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>
Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't
be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the issue (and
Brandon, of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with anyone who doesn't
tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be listened to, no
matter how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon, of course, has
not). Only those who agree with Brandon and his hater line should be
listened to, no matter who much they use opinion as "fact" and
"evidence". That way only one side of any issue can be presented and
all of the "facts" are on their side.
It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

Odd then that *YOU* have snipped the rebuttal and facts about SSSS
and Leonore Tiefer leaving a one sided presentation isn't it?

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing
but more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around,
equivocating, and calling researchers pedophiles if they came to
conclusions he doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the
others against free speech to stop all open debate. open
discussion is the last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than
attack the data or discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and
who, in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if
they had bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological
Association to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind
(Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information.
Theorists and sexual science researchers can make a unique
contribution. Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide
a fair and objective analysis of social phenomena and provide
scientific information--both qualitative and quantitative--based
on the highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have
taken the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress
how peer review works and is an inviolable bulwark against
prejudice and bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an
excellent new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a source
other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>
Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't
be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the issue (and
Brandon, of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with anyone who doesn't
tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and shouldn't be listened to, no
matter how much they have studied the issue (and Brandon, of course, has
not). Only those who agree with Brandon and his hater line should be
listened to, no matter who much they use opinion as "fact" and
"evidence". That way only one side of any issue can be presented and
all of the "facts" are on their side.
It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

Odd then that *YOU* have snipped the rebuttal and facts about SSSS
and Leonore Tiefer leaving a one sided presentation isn't it?

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

(snipped) fact

They are all acolytes of Kidney who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

(snipped) fact

Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
This table describes the orgasms of children who
were used in his sex experiments.

(Snipped) fact


As Reisman dug further, she found that Kinsey had used
pedophiles, including a Nazi, to molest these children. On
pages 160-161 of his book, he describes how these children
screamed, convulsed, and engaged in hysterical weeping as
they were sexually abused to measure their orgasms.

(snipped) fact


One of the original members of the SSSS accrediting committee
is Dr. Vern L. Bullough, who wrote the foreword for the
Dutch pedophile book, Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study Of
Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males. Bullough is active
in promoting the homosexual agenda.

(snipped) fact

Kinsey’s materials are routinely used by pedophiles to promote
the view that children are sexual beings and must be introduced
early into sexual experiences with adults.


(snipped) fact


NAMBLA, for example, says that Kinsey’s research “supports the
struggle we fight today.” (Dr. Reisman, “The O’Reilly Factor,”
February 11,2003)

(snipped) fact


Kinsey associate Wardell Pomeroy, has written that
adult/child sex can be “loving, thoughtful and responsible.”
(Robert Eady, “Adult-Child sexual relationships next?”
Catholic Insight, June, 1993)

(snipped) fact

Tiefer's "research" paradigm is


"Instead of speaking in terms of "victim", "offender" and sexual
assaults which is still the usual way in scientific writing to refer
to pedophilia,this research approaches pedophile relationships as
simply another form of relationships children can have"


(snipped) fact

SSSS is pedophile-friendy

"The writings offered different perspectives on the topic and even
included a chapter by an admitted pedophile."

(snipped fact)

SSSS themselves recognize this even if you don't

"As we have heard in regard to recent books and articles covering
topics related to the sexual practices or activities involving
children (e.g., J. Levine's book "Harmful to Minors") we might be
under scrutiny and castigated for our interests and efforts."

Miscelaneous fact:

*YOU* are a loathsome sexual predator on children.

[XXX]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of
nothing but more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around,
equivocating, and calling researchers pedophiles if they came
to conclusions he doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the
others against free speech to stop all open debate. open
discussion is the last thing brandon and bob want. so rather
than attack the data or discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two
particular fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and
who, in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even
if they had bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be
resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as
to who actually recommended the study for publication if
anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological
grounds. --

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive
Committee, and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the
Archives of Human Sexuality would like to urge the American
Psychological Association to take a strong stand in support of
Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State
of Maryland), and Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of
Pennsylvania), and in support of the right and need for sexual
scientists to be able to conduct human sexuality research,
unconstrained by political considerations. We would like to
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems
that confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information.
Theorists and sexual science researchers can make a unique
contribution. Their tradition demands that they attempt to
provide a fair and objective analysis of social phenomena and
provide scientific information--both qualitative and
quantitative--based on the highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is
studied, by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the
results that are secured and reported. At the present time, the
major scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative
organizations' furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems
to me to have been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You
should have taken the opportunity to rush to the Hill to
explain to Congress how peer review works and is an inviolable
bulwark against prejudice and bias, to explain to Congress how
meta-analysis is an excellent new tool in medicine and social
science to overcome the vicissitudes of individual studies and
present the current state of evidence, to explain to Congress
that political interference with scientific processes is
exactly what won't help children and won't help society
understand complex and controversial issues, and to offer
workshops on child sexuality and meta- analytic techniques to
assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response.
Instead, you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and
you responded defensively to insist that the APA condemns child
sexual abuse, and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom
of scientific process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a
source other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his
pseudo-scientific perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>
Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and
shouldn't be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the
issue (and Brandon, of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with
anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and
shouldn't be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the
issue (and Brandon, of course, has not). Only those who agree with
Brandon and his hater line should be listened to, no matter who much
they use opinion as "fact" and "evidence". That way only one side of
any issue can be presented and all of the "facts" are on their side.
It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

Odd then that *YOU* have snipped the rebuttal and facts about SSSS
and Leonore Tiefer leaving a one sided presentation isn't it?

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

(snipped) fact
They are all acolytes of Kidney who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

Jesus Christ, you REALLY don't know the difference between fact and
opinion, do you? I mean, I was just trying to insult you, but you
SERIOUSLY don't know the difference! What evidence is it that his
"acolytes" (nice religious imagery there, by the way!) were pedophiles?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
This table describes the orgasms of children who
were used in his sex experiments.

Again, not experiements. Observational data collection.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(Snipped) fact
As Reisman dug further, she found that Kinsey had used
pedophiles, including a Nazi, to molest these children. On
pages 160-161 of his book, he describes how these children
screamed, convulsed, and engaged in hysterical weeping as
they were sexually abused to measure their orgasms.

Evidence that one of the people who worked for Kinsey was a Nazi? What
molestation was done?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
One of the original members of the SSSS accrediting committee
is Dr. Vern L. Bullough, who wrote the foreword for the
Dutch pedophile book, Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study Of
Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males. Bullough is active
in promoting the homosexual agenda.

What, exactly, is the homosexual agenda???

5:30 am - Wake up
5:45 am - Toss off in shower
6:15 am - Anal sex
7:15 am - Leave for work
8:00 am - Arrive at work
12:00 PM - Lunch
12:30 PM - Anal sex
1:00 PM - Back to work
5:00 PM - Leave for home
5:45 PM - Arrive home, start dinner
6:15 PM - Dinner
7:00 PM - Anal sex
8:00 PM - Watch porn
9:00 PM - Watch Ellen on TiVo
10:00 PM - Anal sex
10:45 PM - Sleep

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
Kinsey’s materials are routinely used by pedophiles to promote
the view that children are sexual beings and must be introduced
early into sexual experiences with adults.

And the Bible is routinely used to promote hatred.

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:30:22 +0100 (CET), Baal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of
nothing but more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around,
equivocating, and calling researchers pedophiles if they came
to conclusions he doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the
others against free speech to stop all open debate. open
discussion is the last thing brandon and bob want. so rather
than attack the data or discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two
particular fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and
who, in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even
if they had bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be
resubmitted.

Cite, please?

HUH?
see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

see above page 63

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as
to who actually recommended the study for publication if
anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological
grounds. --

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive
Committee, and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the
Archives of Human Sexuality would like to urge the American
Psychological Association to take a strong stand in support of
Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State
of Maryland), and Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of
Pennsylvania), and in support of the right and need for sexual
scientists to be able to conduct human sexuality research,
unconstrained by political considerations. We would like to
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems
that confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information.
Theorists and sexual science researchers can make a unique
contribution. Their tradition demands that they attempt to
provide a fair and objective analysis of social phenomena and
provide scientific information--both qualitative and
quantitative--based on the highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is
studied, by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the
results that are secured and reported. At the present time, the
major scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative
organizations' furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems
to me to have been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You
should have taken the opportunity to rush to the Hill to
explain to Congress how peer review works and is an inviolable
bulwark against prejudice and bias, to explain to Congress how
meta-analysis is an excellent new tool in medicine and social
science to overcome the vicissitudes of individual studies and
present the current state of evidence, to explain to Congress
that political interference with scientific processes is
exactly what won't help children and won't help society
understand complex and controversial issues, and to offer
workshops on child sexuality and meta- analytic techniques to
assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response.
Instead, you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and
you responded defensively to insist that the APA condemns child
sexual abuse, and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom
of scientific process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm

I note you choose to reference the Tiefer and the SSSS from a
source other than the International Pedophile Emancipation Library
:)
They are all acolytes of Kinsey who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his
pseudo-scientific perversities..

<Snipped hater rantings>
Anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and
shouldn't be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the
issue (and Brandon, of course, has not). Anyone who agrees with
anyone who doesn't tow Brandon's hater line is a pedophile and
shouldn't be listened to, no matter how much they have studied the
issue (and Brandon, of course, has not). Only those who agree with
Brandon and his hater line should be listened to, no matter who much
they use opinion as "fact" and "evidence". That way only one side of
any issue can be presented and all of the "facts" are on their side.
It is how haters work - Don't allow any informtion that may
call into question the hater's hate.

Odd then that *YOU* have snipped the rebuttal and facts about SSSS
and Leonore Tiefer leaving a one sided presentation isn't it?

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

(snipped) fact
They are all acolytes of Kidney who is notorious for his use of
pedophiles to abuse children ..even babies for his pseudo-scientific
perversities..

Jesus Christ, you REALLY don't know the difference between fact and
opinion, do you? I mean, I was just trying to insult you, but you
SERIOUSLY don't know the difference! What evidence is it that his
"acolytes" (nice religious imagery there, by the way!) were pedophiles?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
This table describes the orgasms of children who
were used in his sex experiments.

Again, not experiements. Observational data collection.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(Snipped) fact
As Reisman dug further, she found that Kinsey had used
pedophiles, including a Nazi, to molest these children. On
pages 160-161 of his book, he describes how these children
screamed, convulsed, and engaged in hysterical weeping as
they were sexually abused to measure their orgasms.

Evidence that one of the people who worked for Kinsey was a Nazi?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200410/ai_n9462287

"One Kinsey 'contributor' was a WWII Nazi officer, Dr. Fritz von
Balluseck. His young victims had to choose between rape or the gas
chamber. Kinsey wrote 'thank you' for Balluseck's on-going rape
reports but, 'watch out.'"

Reisman cites a 1998 British television documentary, "Kinsey's
Paedophiles," that recounted how German newspapers uncovered Kinsey's
connection to von Balluseck when the former Gestapo director was on
trial for the sex-related murder of a little girl in 1956.

The German papers found letters from Kinsey thanking the pedophile for
his ongoing child-rape "data," which continued until 1954. Kinsey, who
"kept up a regular and lively correspondence," told von Balluseck to
"watch out" or he would be caught.

Post by XXX
What
molestation was done?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200410/ai_n9462287

The Times quoted Kinsey's passionate wooing of Rex King, one of his
many serial child molesters. "I rejoice at everything you send, for I
am then assured that that much more of your material is saved for
scientific publication." Kinsey's bogus scientific "tables summarized
King's attempts to bring to orgasm boys between the ages of 2 months
and 15 years, in some cases over a period as long as 24 hours."

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
One of the original members of the SSSS accrediting committee
is Dr. Vern L. Bullough, who wrote the foreword for the
Dutch pedophile book, Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study Of
Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males. Bullough is active
in promoting the homosexual agenda.

What, exactly, is the homosexual agenda???
5:30 am - Wake up
5:45 am - Toss off in shower
6:15 am - Anal sex
7:15 am - Leave for work
8:00 am - Arrive at work
12:00 PM - Lunch
12:30 PM - Anal sex
1:00 PM - Back to work
5:00 PM - Leave for home
5:45 PM - Arrive home, start dinner
6:15 PM - Dinner
7:00 PM - Anal sex
8:00 PM - Watch porn
9:00 PM - Watch Ellen on TiVo
10:00 PM - Anal sex
10:45 PM - Sleep

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
(snipped) fact
Kinsey’s materials are routinely used by pedophiles to promote
the view that children are sexual beings and must be introduced
early into sexual experiences with adults.

And the Bible is routinely used to promote hatred.

[XXX]

Hash: SHA512
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 11:30, in alt.support.boy-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:29:47 -0800 (PST), nudist_emy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:08 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
----------------------
And the rest of Brainwashed's comments here consist of nothing but
more of this sort of cowardly thrashing around, equivocating, and
calling researchers pedophiles if they came to conclusions he
doesn't like.

As usual you are wrong..they are self-confessed
pedophile activists..

its just another in a long list of attempts by brandon and the others
against free speech to stop all open debate. open discussion is the
last thing brandon and bob want. so rather than attack the data or
discussion they attack the messengers.

Everyone up to and including Congress attacked these two particular
fork-tongued "messengers".

The overwhelming majority of whom didn't even read the study, and who,
in all likelihood, wouldn't have understood the study, even if they had
bothered to read it.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/3278d2
It had been rejected by the first set of peer reviewers,and the
authors told the study was so flawed it could not be resubmitted.

Cite, please?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
However after a change of editors Rind et al. tried again.
This time at least one reviewer also turned the study down.

Cite, please?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Because the others had not come forward, it remains unclear as to
who actually recommended the study for publication if anybody.
The study has been repeatedly criticized on methodological grounds.
--

Not by everyone....
Letters to the APA from Concerned Members of the Scientific Community
July 3, 1999
Dr. Raymond Fowler
President: American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-4242
We, the president and past-presidents of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Sex, members of the SSSS Executive Committee,
and editors of Journal of Sex Research and the Archives of Human
Sexuality would like to urge the American Psychological Association
to take a strong stand in support of Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and
Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania), and in
support of the right and need for sexual scientists to be able
to conduct human sexuality research, unconstrained by political
(a) If society is going to solve the serious social problems that
confront us, it needs knowledge and accurate information. Theorists
and sexual science researchers can make a unique contribution.
Their tradition demands that they attempt to provide a fair and
objective analysis of social phenomena and provide scientific
information--both qualitative and quantitative--based on the
highest of scientific standards.
(b) Political considerations and calculations must be kept
separate from the scientific enterprise and/or in the
publication decisions of the decisions of scientific
journal editors. Only scholarly research that is free,
disinterested, and scrupulously honest can hope to provide
useful answers to challenging questions.
(c) We would hope that APA would resist the efforts of
various political, religious, and special lobbying groups to
intervene in the scientific enterprise--shaping what is studied,
by whom it is studied, how it is studied, and the results that
are secured and reported. At the present time, the major
scientific journals have peer-review process in place to
evaluate ALL studies and experiments. Currently, all kinds
of research are evaluated, using the same rigorous scientific
standards. For APA or any other organization to single out
"controversial" studies from all others and apply a second
and a third filter in judging whether or not such studies
should be published and disseminated is to cast a chill on
all such research. In addition, this process would be, by
definition, discriminatory.
We, the past presidents of SSSS and the current editor of the
Annual Review of Sex Research join together in urging you to
staunchly support the right of sexual scientists to engage in
free intellectual inquiry--especially in the area of
"controversial" research.
Warmest regards,
Dr. Elaine Hatfield, President SSSS
Dr. Albert Ellis, First President of SSSS
Dr. Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Past President SSSS
Dr. Vern L. Bullough, Past President SSSS
Dr. Clive Davis, Past President SSSS
Dr. Richard P. Keeling, Past President SSSS
Dr. John Money, Past President SSSS
Dr. Naomi McCormick, Past President SSSS
Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard, Past President SSSS
Dr. Ira Reiss, Past President SSSS
Dr. Stephanie Sanders, Past President SSSS
Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Past President SSSS
Dr. Julia Heiman, Editor, Annual Review of Sex Research
*****
July 15, 1999
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Richard M. Suinn, Ph.D., President
Patrick H. DeLeon, Ph.D., J D., President-elect
American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, D. C. 20002
As a long-time APA member and a long-time sex researcher,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the
contemptible public position you have taken in response to
the political furor over the Psychological Bulletin paper
by Drs. Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. I have been a great
admirer of the clear-eyed and comprehensive work these
authors have contributed to the murky and polemical field
of child sexuality and child sexual abuse, and your failure
to defend their approach and the policies and procedures of
APA journals is unforgiveable. As you surely must know, it is
almost impossible to conduct research on child sexuality as
a result of a chilling political climate, and that, as a
consequence, important legislative, policy, and judicial
decisions are made every day in the absence of the kind of
reliable scientific evidence which we as a profession ought
to be providing to guide these decisions.
Your response to the Congressional and conservative organizations'
furor, as presented in The New York Times, seems to me to have
been exactly the opposite of what was needed. You should have taken
the opportunity to rush to the Hill to explain to Congress how peer
review works and is an inviolable bulwark against prejudice and
bias, to explain to Congress how meta-analysis is an excellent
new tool in medicine and social science to overcome the
vicissitudes of individual studies and present the current state
of evidence, to explain to Congress that political interference
with scientific processes is exactly what won't help children
and won't help society understand complex and controversial
issues, and to offer workshops on child sexuality and meta-
analytic techniques to assist Congress in the future.
But, sadly, apparently none of those was your response. Instead,
you fell for the ambush, you fell into the trap, and you responded
defensively to insist that the APA condemns child sexual abuse,
and that you would take steps to muzzle freedom of scientific
process.
Whose interests are served by your failure to strongly defend
Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, the editor of Psych. Bull., and
its entire peer review process? Not mine, or the other members
of the APA. Not psychologists or others struggling to conduct
valid and reliable sex research. Not the public who needs
information about child sexuality and about professional
scientific methods. Not children, for whom you accomplished
nothing. Whose interests did you serve? I'd like to know.
Obviously outraged,
Leonore Tiefer, Ph.D.
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ssss_tiefer.htm
So, Brandon, are you going to libel all the above people as well?

Of course he will. Haters hate, it is what they do.

PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus

[XXX]

***@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote:

Yes, this does sound like me, doesn't it?

of the Twelve
Tables at Athens, afterwards taken by the Romans, and as it would be easy
to prove, if Josephus and others had not sufficiently dealt with this
subject.
620. Advantages of the Jewish people.--In this search the Jewish people
at once attracts my attention by the number of wonderful and singular
facts which appear about them.
I first see that they are a people wholly composed of brethren, and
whereas all others are formed by the assemblage of an infinity of
families, this, though so wonderfully fruitful, has all sprung from one
man alone, and, being thus all one flesh, and members one of another,
they constitute a powerful state of one family. This is unique.
This family, or people, is the most ancient within human knowledge, a
fact which seems to me to inspire a peculiar veneration for it,
especially in view of our present inquiry; since if God had from all time
revealed himself to men, it is to these we must turn for knowledge of the
tradition.
This people are not eminent solely by their antiquity, but are also
singular by their duration, which has always continued from their origin
till now. For, whereas the nations of Greece and of Italy, of Lacedaemon,
of Athens and of Rome, and others who came long after, have long since
perished, these ever remain, and in spite of the endeavours of many
powerful kings who have a hundred times tried to destroy them, as their
historians testify, and as it is easy to conjecture from the natural
order of things during so long a space of years, they have nevertheless
been preserved (and this preservation has been foretold); and extending
from the earliest times to the latest, their history comprehends in its
duration all our histories which it preceded by a long time.
The law by which this people is governed is at once the most ancient law
in the world, the

[XXX]

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by XXX

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult?hild sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult?child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.
For example, an incest Web site titled ?olden Incest Sites!?lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult?hild sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men? internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult?hild sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men?
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult?hild Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims?Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims?pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims?pain when he
They couldn? show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I? give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes ? video of a ?irl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her?(cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
?he pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl?
smile as evidence of her consent?(Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult?hild Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that ?ost sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior?(LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These ?lase belief-systems?(Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children ?hat the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong?(Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There? nothing wrong with adult?hild sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means ?hey?e
asking for it.?
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it? fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don? tell anyone about being molested, can? be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn? want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children ?onsented to the actions,?or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be ?onsensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it?(Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that ?l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative?
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography ?nables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality?(p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe ?hat both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child?(Wyre, 1990, pp. 284?85).
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men?
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men? internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

And where is the data? These are all opinions, but no data to back it up.

Well, if you want real DATA ....
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

I've posted this many times. I've read the literature regarding
adult-child sexual interactions.

[Baal]

On Sunday 06 January 2008 04:23, in alt.support.girl-lovers,

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization
http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html
Belief in such myths undermines some men's internal inhibitions
against victimizing children
Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult-Child Sex/Victimization
Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult-child sex is proscribed in most countries today.
Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult-child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.

Notice the loaded wording in the above paragraph. If the word 'depict'
had been used instead of 'promote', and 'assault' or 'abuse' instead of
'victimization' it would still be accurate, but a lot less loaded from
an emotional point of view.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
For example, an incest Web site titled "Golden Incest Sites!" lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.

Note the irony here... in giving an example of a website, they are,
ironically, promoting a site that features the very abuse they are trying
to argue against.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There is also the 'lure of the forbidden fruit'
factor to be considered here. People are almost invariably drawn to that
which is forbidden.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult-child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.

One wonders how precisely the authors came to the conclusion that these
portrayals were 'positive'?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men's internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.

There is an old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Given a
particular image, or set of images, some will be attracted, while others
will be repelled.

People can get turned on by a variety of things; some pedophiles are
reportedly turned on by children's clothing catalogs--are these to be
considered contraband because they turn some people on?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult-child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men's
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability.

Here we go again.... more crap from Judith Reismann.... FWIW, I read the
above-mentioned magazines as a young man, around the time that Reisman
did her studies, and I certainly don't remember any 'child pornography'
cartoons.

Her [i.e. Reisman's] grant was so poorly written and its budget so
inflated that it drew criticism from the Senate Juvenile Justice
Subcommittee.

Two feeble attempts were made to provide research that was
tailor-made to support the Commission. The Justice Department
had given antiporn activist Judith Reisman a grant for $734,000
to study the cartoons in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler....

... Her knowledge of child sexuality probably comes from her
experience as a scriptwriter for "Captain Kangaroo." Her grant
was so poorly written and its budget so inflated that it drew
criticism from the Senate Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. It
emerged that Reisman's "peer review" had been conducted by
three vice cops, an FBI agent, and fellow antiporn activist
and beneficiary of Justice Department funding, Ann Burgess.
Reisman testified at the hearings, but her warning that
"The cartoon scenario is the common setting in erotica/
pornography within which the breaking of sexual taboos
first appears," was not exactly what the Commission needed
to put itself over the top. [20]

http://cultronix.eserver.org/califia/meese/notes.html#20

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)

So what are you arguing for here? Are all communications to be monitored
because some people with <insert favourite deviant behaviour here> desires
can be controlled? People naturally gravitate toward others with similar
desires--it's human nature. You can't monitor everything, you can't ban
everything.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult-Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims' Pain and Trauma)
Masking child victims' pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims' pain when he
They couldn't show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I'd give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)
British journalist Davies (1994) describes "a video of a 'girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her" (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
"The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl's
smile as evidence of her consent" (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.
Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)
The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.

Irrelevant. In those persons not so inclined, child pornography will be
condemned out-of-hand. If someone /is/ so inclined, then they are likely
to ignore any signs of distress or suffering.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult-Child Sex/Victimization
Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that "most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior" (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These "flase belief-systems" (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children "that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong" (Tate, 1990, p. 110).
Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
1. There's nothing wrong with adult-child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means "they're
asking for it."
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it's fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don't tell anyone about being molested, can't be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn't want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.
Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children "consented to the actions," or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be "consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it" (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that "[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative"
(p.117).

Does this come as a surprise?

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography "enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality" (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe "that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child" (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284-285).

Construct a different version of reality? <Sigh>

It should be obvious that anyone who acts on their sexual attraction to
children /already/ has a different reality-construct than the rest of
society.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men's
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men's internal inhibitions against victimizing
children

_What_ descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men's magazines?
Cite some. I've never seen any. Sounds like we're back to Reisman's
long-discredited cartoon-research again.

As far as undermining internal inhibitions, one might as well explain-
away someone axe-murdering their mother-in-law on the reading of murder
mysteries.

Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by Baal

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult-child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men's
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability.

Here we go again.... more crap from Judith Reismann.... FWIW, I read the
above-mentioned magazines as a young man, around the time that Reisman
did her studies, and I certainly don't remember any 'child pornography'
cartoons.

-----------------------------------
He and She mean(t) the classic cartoons where an adult says or thinks
something sexual about or around a child, or the child says or thinks
something sexual about or around an adult. They call those "child
pornography" demonstrating their extremist antisex distortionist
insanity.
Steve