In 1998, the publishing of a single peer-reviewed article by a major scientific journal ultimately resulted in the setting of a significant and distressing precedent in how science
will be handled in the future by two major scientific organizations and the US government. This was not because of methodological or scientific inadequacy (as will be seen), but because its findings defied moral based expectations, creating a political backlash which
did overcome scientific principles and thus is directly analogous to past suppression of heliocentric theory, methodological naturalism, evolution, etc.
This site appears dedicated to scientific investigation unhindered by a priori moral expectations, and many here actively defend that idea. Many do so against precisely the same organizations and political/ideological groups who launched their
successful attack on this particular study.
It is with great interest then that I present this study, its history, and findings as critics
of my own position on that subject claimed that either I had had used it despite its being in 'disrepute', or conversely that it rebutted my position. In truth I had missed that study altogether in past research (for various reasons), and only recently decided to check into it given their comments. I must thank my critics for passing it along to me as it turned out both claims were incorrect. It is also an interesting story of science and morality.
I would like everyone to examine this case and ask themselves which is more important: scientific understanding, or science bounded by cultural moral expectations of what science should find? If the former is important, what does the study lead you to believe about the state of scientific knowledge on the subject in question?
(note: all bracketed { } and
emphasized words within following quotes are mine)
Scientific Paper and Peer Review Process:In 1998, researchers Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch
presented a paper on assumed properties of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA), as well as having a study published on essentially the same topic (link is to a pdf document of their full study for your review):
Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R.,
A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples ,in: Psychological Bulletin 1998, Vol 124, No 1, pp 22-53. (from now on referred to as RMAE)
The Psychological Bulletin is a highly respected journal in the field of psychology and the study was peer-reviewed using accepted protocols set by the American Psychological Association (APA1). Most would take this as a sign that it passed scientific muster. After publication, considerable public opinion formed against it, and APA1's CEO Raymond Fowler defended it's credibility stating "...it isn't a bad study. It's been peer-reviewed by the same principles as any kind of scientific publication. It's been examined by statistical experts. It's a good study."
When public opinion turned into overt political pressure, APA1 made extraordinary concessions (which will be discussed in the next section), including ordering an independent review of the article. To do this they contacted the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), another large and very prestigious organization.
The AAAS refused (Oct 99) to step full into the controversy and formally review the article. Although they said that their rejection should not be taken as an "endorsement or criticism of {RMAE}" the wording of their refusal was highly suggestive. Describing their initial investigation as "considerable deliberations taking into account the views of... two consultants and extensive background materials on reactions to the published article" they felt that there was "no reason to second-guess the peer review process" and that "examining all materials available... saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or questionable practices..."
Thus, while not championing the study as "right", which would be inappropriate anyway, it did support the rigorous peer review process the study
had already gone through, and the author's methods as scientifically sound.
In addition, they put some verbal water on the "flames of controversy" as well as the people fanning them...
The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings... we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behavior that the Committee finds very distressing.
At this level of support: 1) a peer reviewed process before publication and 2) the initial stages of a second review which concluded that it was not necessary as the first was sufficient... is the article's scientific credibility not substantiated? Would you agree the
author's assessment (in response to APA1's later faltering position) was justified, that...
The methods of the review, including the meta-analytic approach, are sound and appropriate. If there is disagreement with the findings and conclusions, the appropriate response is to conduct a review of the research with college samples that demonstrates where errors were made, or better yet, to conduct research with populations of college students that can either confirm or refute the conclusions.
Not knowing yet what the data and results were, what would you think of a person's reasoning and conclusion if it coincided with the conclusions of this study? Reasonable? Stupid? Immoral? Criminal?
Political Review Process Detailed:The conclusions of the article were swiftly picked up and
broadcast by the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Though misinterpreted, the findings in general came as a sort of godsend to such groups. In fact, through another poster's initial citation to this article at EvC I discovered sexual liberation groups (pedo or not) keep great records on this controversy. Most of the links I am providing are to these RMAE "collection" sites. While I cannot say much for anything else they have at those sites you can find good source material on RMAE
here,
here, and much of the chronological discussion as well as the author's rebuttal to all criticisms which follow
here or
here.
Given the lack of controversy to the earlier presentation and other published articles of a similar nature in the past, the critiques which soon followed seemed more a response to NAMBLA's excitement, than to the study itself. But you can be the judge.
The
first salvo came from The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (
NARTH). Yes it is a psychiatric group focused on changing gays into straights. This was followed by denunciations from the religious press and eventually "Dr. Laura", whose criticism you can see
here. This was followed in turn by the Family Research Council (FRC). Though I imagine most of you can guess the scientific credibility of their responses, I suggest people read them. The words will perhaps ring familiar to those who have followed the criticisms of my own position regarding scientific evidence regarding harm of sexuality.
More grounded attacks came from the Leadership Council who still have
a section devoted to attacking RMAE. They are a psychiatric organization dedicated to recovered memory issues. Most criticisms centered on sample bias, loaded analyses, and their "stacking the deck".
For those that believe I find RMAE wholly beyond criticism, let me disabuse you of this now. I have issues with meta-analyses in general and some specific critiques from the Leadership Council fall in line with my issues with this kind of study.
However, the author's rebuttal of the issues raised by the LC, particularly when one realizes that they had already mentioned the potential issues in RMAE itself, were IMO more than sufficient. They competently pointed out those issues they did not control for during the study, would stand against the original studies used in analysis and most within review (anything the LC would appeal to), as well as that for the purposes of RMAE's conclusions, the data was all that was necessary to make them.
Again you can find the criticisms nicely outlined, then addressed
at this link. It is a bit lengthy so I'd rather save space and not post the entire debate here when it is already there.
Next, the American
Psychiatric Association (APA2) joined this so far fringe group movement and
blasted the study publically. In a letter to the FRC the head of APA2 thanked the FRC (?) regarding its stance on pedophilia as a mental disorder, stated APA2 disagreed with RMAE's conclusions and...
From a psychological perspective, sex between adult and child is always abusive and exploitative because the adult always holds the power in the relationship... [a]cademic hair-splitting over whether the act should be considered adult-child sex or child sexual abuse . . is not in the public interest and obfuscates the moral issues involved.
This put an official stamp on the concept that scientific research, particularly its findings, must be bound by the public interest and align itself so as not to confuse people who shape their morals at least nominally on "facts". Interestingly enough APA2 could have addressed this through normal scientific methods, including (if they were correct) the listing of studies which were either ignored by RMAE or recently confirmed APA2's claim. Instead they joined the fray with blank statements that were undocumented, unpeer-reviewed, and using language which emphasized moral and legal issues which 'just are'.
These conservative and psychiatric groups began to make legislative headway. This is not anything unlike the current movements underway regarding EvC. In Washington Congressman Tom DeLay, Salmon, and Weldon (all Reps) led the charge against APA1, asking it to repudiate the study.
As mentioned above APA1 at first stood by the study, but as pressure reached a level which the APA1 CEO described as "hand to hand combat with congressmen, talk show hosts, the Christian Right, and the American Psychiatric Association", in an historic move, the APA1 bowed to
political pressure and
distanced itself from the study, and when that was not enough the
CEO issued another statement further downplaying the results of the study as well as suggesting that future policy of review would take into account what moral and legal positions they need to support, and that they as a scientific organization
advocate...
APA's position is...; child sexual abuse is harmful to children. Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior, and is properly punishable by law.
Both APA1 statements, while consistently corroborating the scientific soundness of the study, mischaracterized the studies findings in an attempt to make them seem more "palatable" and suggested the APA1 had 'nothing to do with it', which resulted in the authors having to correct APA1 in future writings as well as take an adversarial stance, as indeed anyone else will have to, regarding published scientifically sound results.
Of course APA1's placation did nothing but add yet another stamp to the cause. At this point the US Congress drafted and passed
unanimously H. Con. Res. 107, an historic act in itself as it was the first US government resolution against a scientific study. This should be read in its entirety, but the following excerpts give an interesting insight into this resolution and what lies behind opposition to the study...
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published in the Psychological Bulletin...
Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival than our children;
Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God;
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children are parents' 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 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 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, once published and allowed to stand, scientific literature may become a source for additional research;...
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...; and
Whereas pedophiles and organizations, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that advocate laws to permit sex between adults and children are exploiting the study to promote and justify child sexual abuse:...
...{Congress} condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article {RMAE}...vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;... urges the President likewise to reject and condemn, in the strongest possible terms, 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...
This was the political review process. It was successful where actual scientific review could not alter the results of a factual peer-reviewed study. And it has set precedent for future binding of science, as APA1 and APA2 have gone on record conflating scientific investigation with moral and legal philosophy, as if "wrong" and "criminal" can be a provable scientific finding, and worse than that, a priori claims to such things must help influence how scientists must explore the world around them.
Rind later noted that someone in response to APA1's concessions (i.e. agreeing to ask for an outside review, to consider the social policy implications of future articles, and to write an amicus curiae brief stating that RMAE was invalid for legal use) created a bumper sticker analogizing the incident to Galileo's troubles...
If the US Congress says that 'The sun revolves around the earth,' then that fact will be given most careful consideration in all articles published by the APA.
If this had been an astronomical study, or a biological (evo) study, and the above was the peer review process, as well as the resulting political review process which trumped the former, how would you be feeling right now? What would you say about a person who stuck by the study, rather than moving with the political process?
Not to dwell on the guilt by association arguments I could be making, nor enter into conspiratorial theorizing of why the APA2 would be linking arms with Dr.Laura, NARTH, and the Leadership Council to beat up APA1 and RMAE, I ask you to simply look at the arguments actually brought against RMAE, and the process by which it was hamstrung. Was that scientifically sound, and do you accept its results?
To dwell slightly on a slippery-slope, note the
printed reaction of the FRC to the APA1's complicity...
It's a good first step, but now the APA needs to root out the pro-pedophilic academicians who are trying to normalize child abuse.
If it is the right of the government to alter scientific investigation to protect moral and legal definitions, to prevent them from possibly being changed, and label investigations which might influence policy as "threats", is it also not reasonable to assume they have the right to head off such studies by "rooting out" scientists likely to create them and labeling them as criminal conspirators? Is this a source for worry?
DefenseThe study was of course not without its defenders. And those were not all within the pedo rights community. Rind listed some in the mainstream press:The New Republic (May 28. 1999, by J. Zenergle,feed service), Der Spiegel (August 2, 1999, by R. Paul, pp. 190-91), National Journal (August 7,1999, by J. Rauch, pp. 2269- 70), New York Times Magazine (November 7, 1999 , by A. Sullivan, pp. 38-40), the Skeptical Inquirer (January / February 2000, by Berry & Berry , p. 20), The Public Interest (Winter 2000. by G. Zuriff , pp.29-39), Lingua Franca (February, 2000, by S. Cole, pp. 12-14). the San Francisco Chronicle (June 17, 1999, by J. Carroll, E12), Los Angeles Times (July 19, 1999, by C. Tavris), and Boston Globe (August 1, 1999, by S. Lamb, E1). Just anecdotal, yet perhaps interesting to those who enjoy Dan Savage's skewering of the far right in his column Savage Love, was his support for this study (July 29, 1999)...
Speaking as a survivor of CSA at 14 with a 22-year-old woman; sex at 15 with a 30-year-old man --I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory. It's absurd to think that what I did at 15 would be considered "child sexual abuse," or lumped together by lazy researchers with the incestuous rape of a 5-year- old girl.
But all of this is mere political defense (which failed). Scientific Papers have come out, furthering support for RMAE and damning the actions of APA1 and 2.
Here is an example from an article using a form of literature survey on the subject, published in Sexuality and Culture..
Given that papers within the field both before and after RMAE have suggested similar conclusions and recommendations as found in RMAE, and they have all benefited from similar peer review... what does this suggest regarding the scientific validity of RMAE as well as
the state of scientific knowledge on this subject in general?
RMAE Analysis and ConclusionsReaders may download the paper (above) to see the actual data and detailed literature reviews. That will save space, and anyway if one agrees with the peer-review then it is less important for the purpose of this thread than what were the analyses of literature the authors used to found the purpose of their study, and the resulting conclusions.
+ Reasons for this Study:The setup (common conception):
Commonly expressed opinions, both lay and professional, have implied that CSA possesses four basic properties: causality (it causes harm), pervasiveness (most SA persons are affected), intensity (harm is typically severe), and gender equivalence (boys and girls are affected equally).
The analyses of current scientific literature on CSA (compared to conception):
Qualitative and quantitative literature reviews of CSA have offered mixed conclusions regarding these properties but have suffered from various shortcomings. Problems in qualitative reviews have generally included sampling bias (i.e., overreliance on clinical and legal samples), subjectivity, and imprecision. Quantitative reviews have included larger proportions of nonclinical and nonlegal samples, reduced subjectivity, and increased precision and indicate that the intensity of CSA effects or correlates is of low magnitude in the general population. These reviews, however, have offered less clarification regarding issues of causality, pervasiveness, and gender equivalence.
This is of course not to mention the problem that
all of the previous literature have not been designed to exclude cultural influences, and so were incapable of accurately addressing the four basic properties unconfounded with societal effects. RMAE briefly suggest these influences as well, but is not able to address them within their study. Thus the above studies and RMAE reflect contemporary results within an exclusive Western Societal environment.
Their study proposal:
To address the shortcomings of the qualitative and quantitative reviews, we reviewed {meta-analyzed: a mathematical combination and reanalysis of} the CSA literature based on college samples. The advantages of this literature were (a) it contains the largest set of studies conducted on nonclinical and nonlegal populations; (b) it offers the most extensive database on moderating influences (e.g., family environment), useful for examining the issue of causality; (c) it provides a large number of male samples, facilitating gender comparisons; and (d) it provides a large database on self-reported reactions and effects, enabling examination of the pervasiveness of negative outcomes.
+ Results/Recommendations (my critics please take note):EVIDENCE OF HARM...
Beliefs about CSA in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a powerfully negative force that (a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who experience it will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have an equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls. Despite this widespread belief, the empirical evidence from college and national samples suggests a more cautious opinion. Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties;
CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population. The finding that college samples closely parallel national samples with regard to prevalence of CSA, types of experiences, self-perceived effects, and CSA-symptom relations
strengthens the conclusion that CSA is not a propertied phenomenon and supports Constantine's (1981) conclusion that CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions.
An important reason why the assumed properties of CSA failed to withstand empirical scrutiny in the current review is that
the construct of CSA, as commonly conceptualized by researchers, is of questionable scientific validity. 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 ).
The last paragraph and the fact that age difference did not appear to affect levels of harm in their study leads directly to a discussion of the utility of science using, or presuming, "abuse" as a relevant term for all sexual activity involving children.
APPROPRIATE USE OF TERM "ABUSE" or "CSA"...
One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions 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. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term child should be restricted to nonadolescent children ( Ames & Houston, 1990 ). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the "normal" range of human sexual behaviors ( Bullough, 1990 ; Greenberg, 1988 ; Okami, 1994 ). 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, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse. By drawing these distinctions, researchers are likely to achieve a more scientifically valid understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of the heterogeneous collection of behaviors heretofore labeled CSA.
This of course (especially suggesting a minor could be "willing") was a major factor in political attacks on the study. Indeed the APA1 decided to undercut the study by reiterating a common moral/legal concept known as "informed consent". The authors did not take this lightly as it wholly required the lack of understanding of the study's recommendations to make it. In a paper (cited above) dealing with criticisms of their paper they discussed:
CONSENT and INFORMED CONSENT...
We were also repeatedly attacked for using the construct of consent.
"Dr. Laura's" clinical consultants asked rhetorically "what child or adolescent can make an informed decision to consent to sex" or just asserted that "consent" is a misnomer when applied to minors. "Dr. Laura" asserted that minors are never willing in sexual contacts with adults.
The FRC claimed... our study was "based on the premise that children can actually consent to sex with an adult." Its spokes- woman... added... "children cannot consent to sex and any study that does not accept this premise should be dismissed."
The Leadership Council... wrote that our "study makes an artificial distinction between forced and consensual adult-child sex," adding that our "study suggests that children have the capacity to consent to sex with adults."
Congress rejected the notion of consent by enclosing willing in quotation marks, and denounced the notion that willingness moderates outcomes.
And Fowler of the APA, in his letter to DeLay, wrote that "it is the position of the Association that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults."
Simple vs. informed consent
In Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, the first definition of consent is: "compliance or approval especially of what is done or proposed by another."
This definition can be termed "simple consent," of which children and adolescents are both capable. For example, ethical guidelines for research with children and adolescents typically require researchers to obtain the agreement or assent of the participant. The second definition is: "capable, deliberate, and voluntary agreement to or concurrence in some act or purpose implying physical and mental power and free action." This second definition is "informed consent," which the law takes into account and which is the typical ethical and social definition. Thus, the term "consent" clearly does not always or inevitably imply informed consent.
All our references to "consent" or "willingness" centered on the first definition.
From a scientific viewpoint, the issue is whether simple consent predicts reactions or outcomes successfully. If it does, then it is scientifically valid for use in research, irrespective of moral or ethical objections.
Empirical validation of the consent construct
Nearly all studies in our review distinguished between willing and forced acts. These studies generally defined CSA either as a child or adolescent's sexual experience that was unwanted regardless of partner's age, or as wanted or unwanted experiences with someone older -- typically, at least 5 years older. We statistically compared these unwanted only and mixed consent groups to evaluate the predictive utility of this variable. In the case of males, clear predictive utility emerged: the association between CSA and adjustment problems was greater in the unwanted than mixed group, and only the unwanted group showed poorer adjustment than controls. These results demonstrated empirically the scientific validity of using the consent construct.
{Despite problems which would make RMAE produce artificially higher results for willing or consenting subjects}...These two college results, based on separating CSA by consent, provide additional empirical support for using the consent construct. Even more impressive evidence was provided in two studies based on non-clinical samples, in which CSA-adjustment associations were directly assessed as a function of consent...
This points up why denying "simple consent", and more importantly using "informed consent" is a very sticky issue. The latter appears totally useless in scientific discussions of harm, even if one wishes to introduce it into moral or legal discussions.
As if this was not enough, the authors went on to point out that most of the groups opposing the study (including APA1 on this conceptual issue) classified the C in CSA as
including the age group RMAE recommended be separated into the "adolescent" category for adult-adolescent sex. Thus the APA1, in its criticisms based on "informed consent" appeared to reverse its own earlier statements regarding assessed capability of "informed consent" in adolescents (and to some extent children) in an 1989 US SC amicus curaie. Rind detailed this and the known subjectivity of aoc in general in the following...
the APA argued, based on a review of the developmental literature, that pregnant girls do not need parental consent to obtain abortions, because they are capable, in an informed consent sense, to decide for themselves. They wrote:
"Psychological theory and research about cognitive, social and moral development strongly supports the conclusion that most adolescents are competent to make informed decisions about important life situations. ... In fact, by middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, and reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems. ... By middle adolescence most young people develop an adult-like identity and understanding of self. ...Thus, by age 14 most adolescents have developed adult-like intellectual and social capacities including specific abilities outlined in the law as necessary for understanding treatment alternatives, considering risks and benefits, and giving legally competent consent. ... there are some 11-to-13-year-olds who possess adult-like capabilities in these areas"
In view of these conclusions. which are based on the developmental literature, it seems inconsistent for the APA to now reject even simple consent as a moderating variable in a rigorously peer-reviewed article, given that many of the CSA episodes analyzed involved adolescents.
Critics might argue that medical consent is different from sexual consent, such that adolescents below 16 or 18 cannot possibly give informed consent. But Western societies have no consensus in this regard, thus this argument reflects culture-bound American thinking.
Graupner (1997; 1999; in press) documented age of consent laws throughout the current 57 European jurisdictions. finding that the median age of consent is 14,. with a range from 12 to 17. Most jurisdictions (73% ) have an age of consent somewhere between 12 and 15. Moreover, he noted that national governments and parliaments in these jurisdictions have frequently appointed expert commissions to scrutinize age of consent laws and make recommendations. Most of these commissions recommended 14, but some went as low as 12.
The Canadian age of consent is also 14. These findings call into question claims that no distinctions should be made between adolescents and children. and that even 14 or 15 year olds can never consent and are invariably abused and harmed in sexual involvements with older persons.
REDEFINING CSA: UTILITY AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (aka How minor-sex is similar to Masturbation, Homosexuality, and other past sexual "disorders")
In light of the current findings, it is appropriate to reexamine the scientific validity of the construct of CSA as it has been generally conceptualized. In most studies examined in the current review, CSA was defined based on legal and moral, rather than empirical and phenomenological, criteria. This approach may form a defensible rationale for legal restrictions of these behaviors, but is inadequate and may be invalid in the context of scientific inquiry ( Okami, 1994 ). In science, abuse implies that particular actions or inactions of an intentional nature are likely to cause harm to an individual (cf. Kilpatrick, 1987 ; Money & Weinrich, 1983 ).
Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic, because such a classification may obscure the true nature of the behavior and its actual causes and effects.
The history of attitudes toward sexuality provides numerous examples. Masturbation was formerly labeled "self-abuse" after the 18th century Swiss physician Tissot transformed it from a moral to a medical problem ( Bullough & Bullough, 1977 ). From the mid-1700s until the early 1900s the medical profession was dominated by physicians who believed that masturbation caused a host of maladies ranging from acne to death ( Hall, 1992 ; Money, 1985 ), and medical pronouncements of dangerousness were accompanied by moral tirades (e.g., Kellogg, 1891 ). This conflation of morality and science hindered a scientifically valid understanding of this behavior and created iatrogenic victims in the process ( Bullough & Bullough, 1977 ; Hall, 1992 ; Money, 1985 ). Kinsey et al. (1948) argued that scientific classifications of sexual behavior were nearly identical with theological classifications and the moral pronouncements of English common law in the 15th century...
Behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality, fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual promiscuity were codified as pathological in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (1952) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The number and variety of sexual behaviors labeled pathological has decreased, but mental health professionals continue to designate sexual behaviors as disorders when they violate current sexual scripts for what is considered acceptable ( Levine & Troiden, 1988 ). This history of conflating morality and law with science in the area of human sexuality by psychologists and others indicates a strong need for caution in scientific inquiries of sexual behaviors that remain taboo, with child sexual abuse being a prime example ( Rind , 1995 ).
+ Moral and Legal Implications:
Finally, it is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ( Money, 1979 ), then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948 ). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
I have tried to make this point clear in different posts in different threads, but probably none so clear as in
this recent post where I stated...
This subject contains many different issues and each one could be its own thread...
1) Does sexual activity cause harm (esp in minors and esp when engaged in with adults)?...
2) Is sexual activity with minors morally wrong? Although this could include evidence from 1, it is not necessary depending on the moral system...
3) Should sex be regulated (esp with regard to minors esp with adults)?...
Each of those subjects are completely separate and not contingent upon each other. For example there may be no evidence of harm, and it may not be "wrong", yet there be perfectly good reasons to regulate it based on practical issues or issues of rights. Conversely there may be some harm, and it may be viewed as wrong, yet because of rights or practical issues it should not be regulated.
Thus RMAE forewarned everyone within the study itself that taking the results of this study to "prove" anything beyond scientific knowledge regarding harm as it relates to sex and children, was off base. Those have to be dealt with separately.
For pedo rights groups, while RMAE did support arguments that there is no intrinsic harm from sex and that it may even be considered "positive" in some cases, this did not translate that any and all sexual acts with children would be positive or that most children in this culture would want to engage in sex at any and all ages, especially with others of any and all ages. And further, there was no logical necessity of moving from that scientific conclusion to any moral conclusion, much less a moral conclusion that everyone would share. As many laws are moral based, this could still stand as a morals law, and even if that were refuted as a legislative motive there could be practical reasons (even without appealing to harm).
Moralists cannot take comfort in either their similarly misunderstood meaning of RMAE's conclusions, nor the caveats APA1 and the authors have mentioned. For example while "informed consent" is admittedly available to moral and legal concepts, even if useless for science and measure of harm, that does not mean it
is valid to use.
As I have argued in another thread, there are other challenges to such moral or legal assertions. That is to say, just because science does not deal with certain subjects, does not mean they are not able to be changed or argued against on other grounds.
Everyone should have been set straight by the sober discussion of these truths within RMAE. APA1 and APA2 should also have backed their position and helped instruct the public how science works and that it cannot inherently change morals or laws. If new facts make a populace wish to change their moral stance or legal procedures, then those facts are more necessary to be determined accurately and not buried by law.
My ConclusionWhat this adds up to in my opinion is that a well peer-reviewed study came out with possible ramifications for those who feel they need, or mistakenly thought they had based their moral and legal arguments on a specific physical reality, which this study undercut. In the face of this, forces went into motion to deny the reality of a study (which had accurately described the state of scientific knowledge in a field), as well as set up parameters for future research so as to exclude and punish scientists that might continue "immoral" read "unpopular" scientific investigations.
This is what has been faced in the EvC debate, with Evos trying to explain that if science determines something that undercuts a moral or legal precept that is not a problem with science or a reason to deny knowledge or the process which produced it. Indeed, maybe there are
other reasons for faith, morality, and law.
It has been explained that this is the same principle which was recognized after the experience of heliocentric theory persecution.
Is this not the case here too? If there is a difference with this study and its conclusions what are they? If not, should we not be defending this study and its conclusions until they have ample refutation, as we would any other study? Should we not be correcting those who use the same tactics as many creos do here?
Is a person who accepts the conclusions of this study, or reached them through similar independent investigation: stupid, immoral, or intent on defending criminal activity for doing so?
In investigating this case history, it came as a relief to find myself in the consistent position of defending scientific inquiry against moralists unable to cope with implications, and further that I came to this position while doing similar research yet unaware of this study's very existence (independent corroboration). I wonder how many found themselves waking to rather odd bedfellows by the end of this post?
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-13-2005 19:35 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2