Full Version: Childhood Sexuality I: Legal
After years in the making, I'm finally ready to start posting my Childhood Sexuality treatise. This subject has come up in a couple of other threads, but I wanted to discuss it a bit more generally - outside the context of specific topics like age of consent. But, as so many issues are raised by this subject even in a general sense, I've decided to break the discussion into several parts, which will hopefully prove to be developmental. This, obviously, is the first. The remaining parts (I project another two to three) will follow shortly.
CAUTION: I intend this to be a NAMBLA-free thread. If you wish to discuss this group or their agenda, go here. If you wish to discuss the Curley case (in which they were being defended by the ACLU), go here. If you want to see an example of NAMBLA derailing an otherwise interesting discussion, go here.
In discussing childhood sexuality, age of consent, and "child sexual abuse", there are three areas to be addressed: the legal, the moral, and the psychological. In this thread, I'd like to look at the legal aspects in the context of our legislation extending into other areas of our social life.
In terms of legislating childhood sexuality, we seem to have reached a global consensus: age of consent laws may vary from place to place, but sexual contact between adults and minors is universally defined and officially taboo. Whether the age of consent should be raised, lowered, or even abolished altogether has been discussed in the first thread to which I've linked above. Before looking at the ethics or morality which give rise to such laws, it’s worth noting that, in the US, sexual politics extend well beyond the law.
One of the studies which has had the most impact on my thinking has also proved to be one of the most controversial: "A meta-analytical examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples" by Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch (the Rind Report) published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.
The Rind Report is a complex statistical analysis of fifty-nine previous studies which concludes that sexual relations between adults and children do not usually have long-term harmful effects on the younger partner. On its publication, it was attacked by child advocacy groups, religious leaders, and politicians as "a defense of pedophilia". Though the report was an empirical analysis of existing material with no ideological stance, its evidential conclusions provoked such an outcry that the APA published a virtual retraction asserting that a report which drew such unpopular conclusions should never have been published.
In addition, the report prompted a congressional resolution of condemnation. According to this resolution, Congress "condemns and denounces" any research which finds that sexual relations between adults and minors "are less harmful than believed" or, indeed, that are "anything but abusive [and] destructive". In other words, no matter how sound the research, how convincing the evidence, or how solid the conclusions, research which contradicts popular opinion must be denounced in favor of what is "believed"!
How many academic journals have claimed that a peer reviewed study should not have been published on the basis of an emotional reaction? How often does Congress, without considering any legislative questions, "condemn" statistical social science articles? Apparently, as a society, we can only countenance investigations that support pre-ordained normative assumptions. Like Galileo, researchers like Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch are expected to recant. After all, adult-child sex which is not permanently damaging, like a heliocentric universe, flauts common sense.
To me, the medieval reaction to the Rind Report reflects the sort of societal schizophrenia which permeates our sexual politics. While our culture is awash in sexual imagery - in ads, books, movies, TV, web sites - the official culture decries the omnipresence of sex. There seems to be a pattern of public condemnation and private popularity: we assent to the advisability of expurgating obscenities from discussion boards while we log on to our password-protected porn sites - or nod in agreement to prime time censorship while flipping to soft-core satellite networks. This Saturday sex/Sunday sermon duality has been discussed to an extent in the Sexuality in America thread.
This cultural hypocrisy clearly extends to our attitude toward youthful sexuality. There are many indicators of our attraction to youth and its clear erotic potential: endless coming-of-age movies and teen drama series, high school cheerleaders, androgynously youthful gymnasts and ballerinas, glossies like Sassy and Seventeen (to say nothing of the dozens of fan mags featuring such cultural "icons" as Brittney Spears and the boy-band of the month) the adolescent heroes of anime, and anorexic, waifish models. But once the sexual nature of these images becomes overtly erotic - in, say, Calvin Klein ads featuring adolescents with clearly provocative attitudes - we shrink back from such "child pornography" like vampires from a crucifix (making sure that we've seen the images - just so we know exactly what we're condemning).
Despite our interest in youthful sexuality as adults, we still think of children themselves as pure and sexually innocent, without sexual knowledge or desire, gendered only in the most superficial way - like Barbie and Ken (whom none of us, I'm sure, have ever seen naked) with little plastic bumps in place of genitalia.
When children are exposed to sex, it's like the Fall of Man all over again - they are thought to have been sullied, psychologically maimed, emotionally scarred, in need of therapy. And it seems the more sex permeates our "adult" culture - the more late night talk shows feature jokes about Viagra and presidential blow jobs - the more we feel the need to "protect" our societies "innocents". The more seemingly liberated our attitudes as grown-ups, the more oppressive our attitude toward childhood sexuality: adults are seen as psychologically damaged if they're sexually repressed; children are psychologically damaged if they're not.
So my question for this thread would be: Does our "double standard" regarding adult and child sexuality affect First Amendment rights? Should academic studies be censored because of the empirical conclusions they draw? Should advertising be banned when it eroticizes youth? To what extent should age of consent legislation permeate other aspects of our culture, from academia to the media?
[Thread II to follow]
(Edited to fix URL
)
CAUTION: I intend this to be a NAMBLA-free thread. If you wish to discuss this group or their agenda, go here. If you wish to discuss the Curley case (in which they were being defended by the ACLU), go here. If you want to see an example of NAMBLA derailing an otherwise interesting discussion, go here.
In discussing childhood sexuality, age of consent, and "child sexual abuse", there are three areas to be addressed: the legal, the moral, and the psychological. In this thread, I'd like to look at the legal aspects in the context of our legislation extending into other areas of our social life.
In terms of legislating childhood sexuality, we seem to have reached a global consensus: age of consent laws may vary from place to place, but sexual contact between adults and minors is universally defined and officially taboo. Whether the age of consent should be raised, lowered, or even abolished altogether has been discussed in the first thread to which I've linked above. Before looking at the ethics or morality which give rise to such laws, it’s worth noting that, in the US, sexual politics extend well beyond the law.
One of the studies which has had the most impact on my thinking has also proved to be one of the most controversial: "A meta-analytical examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples" by Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch (the Rind Report) published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.
The Rind Report is a complex statistical analysis of fifty-nine previous studies which concludes that sexual relations between adults and children do not usually have long-term harmful effects on the younger partner. On its publication, it was attacked by child advocacy groups, religious leaders, and politicians as "a defense of pedophilia". Though the report was an empirical analysis of existing material with no ideological stance, its evidential conclusions provoked such an outcry that the APA published a virtual retraction asserting that a report which drew such unpopular conclusions should never have been published.
In addition, the report prompted a congressional resolution of condemnation. According to this resolution, Congress "condemns and denounces" any research which finds that sexual relations between adults and minors "are less harmful than believed" or, indeed, that are "anything but abusive [and] destructive". In other words, no matter how sound the research, how convincing the evidence, or how solid the conclusions, research which contradicts popular opinion must be denounced in favor of what is "believed"!
How many academic journals have claimed that a peer reviewed study should not have been published on the basis of an emotional reaction? How often does Congress, without considering any legislative questions, "condemn" statistical social science articles? Apparently, as a society, we can only countenance investigations that support pre-ordained normative assumptions. Like Galileo, researchers like Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch are expected to recant. After all, adult-child sex which is not permanently damaging, like a heliocentric universe, flauts common sense.
To me, the medieval reaction to the Rind Report reflects the sort of societal schizophrenia which permeates our sexual politics. While our culture is awash in sexual imagery - in ads, books, movies, TV, web sites - the official culture decries the omnipresence of sex. There seems to be a pattern of public condemnation and private popularity: we assent to the advisability of expurgating obscenities from discussion boards while we log on to our password-protected porn sites - or nod in agreement to prime time censorship while flipping to soft-core satellite networks. This Saturday sex/Sunday sermon duality has been discussed to an extent in the Sexuality in America thread.
This cultural hypocrisy clearly extends to our attitude toward youthful sexuality. There are many indicators of our attraction to youth and its clear erotic potential: endless coming-of-age movies and teen drama series, high school cheerleaders, androgynously youthful gymnasts and ballerinas, glossies like Sassy and Seventeen (to say nothing of the dozens of fan mags featuring such cultural "icons" as Brittney Spears and the boy-band of the month) the adolescent heroes of anime, and anorexic, waifish models. But once the sexual nature of these images becomes overtly erotic - in, say, Calvin Klein ads featuring adolescents with clearly provocative attitudes - we shrink back from such "child pornography" like vampires from a crucifix (making sure that we've seen the images - just so we know exactly what we're condemning).
Despite our interest in youthful sexuality as adults, we still think of children themselves as pure and sexually innocent, without sexual knowledge or desire, gendered only in the most superficial way - like Barbie and Ken (whom none of us, I'm sure, have ever seen naked) with little plastic bumps in place of genitalia.
When children are exposed to sex, it's like the Fall of Man all over again - they are thought to have been sullied, psychologically maimed, emotionally scarred, in need of therapy. And it seems the more sex permeates our "adult" culture - the more late night talk shows feature jokes about Viagra and presidential blow jobs - the more we feel the need to "protect" our societies "innocents". The more seemingly liberated our attitudes as grown-ups, the more oppressive our attitude toward childhood sexuality: adults are seen as psychologically damaged if they're sexually repressed; children are psychologically damaged if they're not.
So my question for this thread would be: Does our "double standard" regarding adult and child sexuality affect First Amendment rights? Should academic studies be censored because of the empirical conclusions they draw? Should advertising be banned when it eroticizes youth? To what extent should age of consent legislation permeate other aspects of our culture, from academia to the media?
[Thread II to follow]
(Edited to fix URL
)
The short answer, in my opinion, is when the children tell of their trauma at the time of the event or after they have attained adulthood - then I say the Rind report was wrong.
Why shouldn't I disbelieve the child involved? The child says it was emotionally scarring - so I believe that statement. Sometimes it takes years for the child as an adult to even discuss the event because of the trauma.
For years the common reply to woman who was raped was "you'll get over it - stop whining." Fortunately we have evolved our societal thinking beyond dismissing the cries of outrage and pain.
As for condemning the report itself - I would need more information, I am sure there is another side to this.
By the way - you need to fix your url in your post above.
Why shouldn't I disbelieve the child involved? The child says it was emotionally scarring - so I believe that statement. Sometimes it takes years for the child as an adult to even discuss the event because of the trauma.
For years the common reply to woman who was raped was "you'll get over it - stop whining." Fortunately we have evolved our societal thinking beyond dismissing the cries of outrage and pain.
As for condemning the report itself - I would need more information, I am sure there is another side to this.
By the way - you need to fix your url in your post above.
Okay... That was a short answer to a question which wasn't asked. 
The question here is not whether one agrees with the conclusions of the Rind Report or not, but whether it is the place of our Congress to condemn such a report merely because they're unhappy with the results - not even on the grounds that the research is unconvincing in this case, but on the grounds that it is too convincing and they just don't like it. I would argue that, even if the conclusions of such a paper were erroneous (and, as the Rind Report is purely a statistical analysis, they're not - it's like disagreeing with the fact that three out of six apples is 50%), what business is it of Congress to express an opinion at all?
Suppose an academic study were issued indicating that women were more intelligent than men or that drinking water causes cancer or, I don't know, Asians are better athletes than Hispanics. One may strongly agree or strongly disagree with the findings or even the methods. But should Congress officially put in its two cents? Is that their business??
There will, by the way, Basheva, be plenty of opportunity to discuss the merits of the Rind Report in Thread IV of this discussion. Coming soon!
And thanks for mentioning the coding error in the URL, but it's too late for me to edit it. If people are that interested, they can find the thread by the usual methods - or copy and paste the link from the first part of the tag. (Or Mike could go in and inset that missing bracket.
)
The question here is not whether one agrees with the conclusions of the Rind Report or not, but whether it is the place of our Congress to condemn such a report merely because they're unhappy with the results - not even on the grounds that the research is unconvincing in this case, but on the grounds that it is too convincing and they just don't like it. I would argue that, even if the conclusions of such a paper were erroneous (and, as the Rind Report is purely a statistical analysis, they're not - it's like disagreeing with the fact that three out of six apples is 50%), what business is it of Congress to express an opinion at all?
Suppose an academic study were issued indicating that women were more intelligent than men or that drinking water causes cancer or, I don't know, Asians are better athletes than Hispanics. One may strongly agree or strongly disagree with the findings or even the methods. But should Congress officially put in its two cents? Is that their business??
There will, by the way, Basheva, be plenty of opportunity to discuss the merits of the Rind Report in Thread IV of this discussion. Coming soon!
And thanks for mentioning the coding error in the URL, but it's too late for me to edit it. If people are that interested, they can find the thread by the usual methods - or copy and paste the link from the first part of the tag. (Or Mike could go in and inset that missing bracket.
)
I would need to hear the reason from Congress, as to why the report was condemned.
QUOTE
the Rind Report is purely a statistical analysis, they're not - it's like disagreeing with the fact that three out of six apples is 50%
I took statistics in College, and I know it is possible to prove just about anything statistically. My Professor in that class used to call statistics the 3rd form of lying. So, no one should hold much stock in something that is proven statistically.
QUOTE
The Rind Report. . .concludes that sexual relations between adults and children do not usually have long-term harmful effects on the younger partner
How exactly does one, quantitatively, evaluate the long term effects of the sexual relations that an adult inflicts on a child? And what do they consider to be a "harmful effect". Were they able to do a mind meld of sorts with children that had been molested as young children and determine that they are A-OK, and that being violated in such a way, has no "harmful effect"?
I see a lot of adults that were, very often, exposed to "sexual relations" at a very young age. . . of course they are all prostitutes. But, I guess, there is nothing wrong with that, after all, they are providing a service to the community, making a living selling their bodies. . .because from a young age they were shown that that was all their body was for.
As far as the Congress is concerned I would have to partially agree with Basheva. I would have to know exactly what Congress' reason behind the condemnation. . .and what wording did they use. Because if the research behind this Report is bunk, then they have every right to inform America to take this report with a grain of salt.
-Kisov
Basheva: Here's the text of the resolution:
The full text (containing all of the "reasoning" in a dozen or more "whereas" clauses) can be found here. Be mindful of the fact that they offer no evidence for any of their reasoning (some of which will be addressed in Thread IV) and that they rather reveal their own bias in two of the first clauses:
Do Congressional resolutions get more Victorian???
Kisov: Again, the Rind Report will figure prominently in Thread IV of this debate. I'm still doing a bit of work on it. Due to the amount of background material (and material which has been produced since its publication), it will probably be the most extensive of the three main strains of this debate.
As I mentioned, the report stirred up quite a bit of controversy and, of course, there were some who were quite willing to dismiss it as bunk - as there were others willing to endorse its findings. Congress took one set of responses on board and ignored the other. Even if it were bunk, however, informing America to take a report with a grain of salt is not quite the same thing as condemning, renouncing, and rejecting "in the strongest possible terms" - even were Congress made up of psychologists, social scientists, and statistical anaylsts who might have the first clue about what they're excoriating.
I am impressed, though, that you studied under Benjamin Disraeli ("There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.") - I had no idea you were that old!
QUOTE
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for 'willing' children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);
(2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;
(3) 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; and
(4) 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.
Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1999.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for 'willing' children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);
(2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;
(3) 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; and
(4) 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.
Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1999.
The full text (containing all of the "reasoning" in a dozen or more "whereas" clauses) can be found here. Be mindful of the fact that they offer no evidence for any of their reasoning (some of which will be addressed in Thread IV) and that they rather reveal their own bias in two of the first clauses:
QUOTE
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...
[emphasis - and color choice - mine]
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children are parents' sacred duty...
[emphasis - and color choice - mine]
Do Congressional resolutions get more Victorian???
Kisov: Again, the Rind Report will figure prominently in Thread IV of this debate. I'm still doing a bit of work on it. Due to the amount of background material (and material which has been produced since its publication), it will probably be the most extensive of the three main strains of this debate.
As I mentioned, the report stirred up quite a bit of controversy and, of course, there were some who were quite willing to dismiss it as bunk - as there were others willing to endorse its findings. Congress took one set of responses on board and ignored the other. Even if it were bunk, however, informing America to take a report with a grain of salt is not quite the same thing as condemning, renouncing, and rejecting "in the strongest possible terms" - even were Congress made up of psychologists, social scientists, and statistical anaylsts who might have the first clue about what they're excoriating.
I am impressed, though, that you studied under Benjamin Disraeli ("There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.") - I had no idea you were that old!
I'm just old at heart, Wertz.
But seriously, Wertz, but not answering my questions and defering to other debates. . .which don't even exsist yet. You are really starting to argue like a creationist. . . . and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Mean comment removed 
-Kisov
But seriously, Wertz, but not answering my questions and defering to other debates. . .which don't even exsist yet. You are really starting to argue like a creationist. . . . and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Mean comment removed -Kisov
Wertz,
You have set up a straw man argument. Yes, Congress has passed a resolution as you have presented it that condemns a scientifically based study. And this extends beyond the scope of what I believe Congress should be doing.
But I think it is going to take a lot more reports to see sexual encounters between 16 year-olds and five year olds or a 37 year old and a 17 year old as anything but predatory on the part of the older partner.
When I see convincing evidence that it hurts the 5 year old and the 17 year old not to be in that relationship then I might come around. Until then it seems like the dark ages for me. Well, this was usual practice in Classic Greece, so maybe I missed my historical era.
You have set up a straw man argument. Yes, Congress has passed a resolution as you have presented it that condemns a scientifically based study. And this extends beyond the scope of what I believe Congress should be doing.
But I think it is going to take a lot more reports to see sexual encounters between 16 year-olds and five year olds or a 37 year old and a 17 year old as anything but predatory on the part of the older partner.
When I see convincing evidence that it hurts the 5 year old and the 17 year old not to be in that relationship then I might come around. Until then it seems like the dark ages for me. Well, this was usual practice in Classic Greece, so maybe I missed my historical era.
Kisov: It's just that I don't want to drag things into this thread that I'm already working on for the next - it would be too much like double-posting. And you know how Jaime feels about that. It may have been inadvisable to post the first few parts of this before all of them were complete, though - and, for that, I apologize.
Witty response to mean comment removed.
Witty response to mean comment removed.
Don't drag Jaime into this, as your excuse for starting 4 or more debates on exactly the same topic. I can't imagine she advocated you doing that. I hate it when someone answers my rebuttals with "well blah blah blah need to start a new topic blah blah blah we will discuss this further blah blah blah". Does any one else out there agree with me? What am I supposed to do cut and paste my rebuttal on all 3 (soon to be 4 debates). . .and hope that I will get an answer on one of the debates because my rebuttal just so happened to fit the niche of that debate.
I am all for staying on topic, but when one person keeps splintering the subject so many times, it is more than frustrating!
-Kisov
I am all for staying on topic, but when one person keeps splintering the subject so many times, it is more than frustrating!
-Kisov
Kisov: In the past, there have been several instances in which it has been pointed out, rightly, that a participant was opening a thread which was too broad. This would've been the case had I initiate a thread merely called "Childhood Sexuality". It is simply too encompassing. Even as it is, each of these areas (except for the personal, which is just kinda background to my owbn bias, anyway) opens up several potential threads of debate. I was hoping that, in breaking the subject up into the broad areas of the legal, the ethical, and the psychological, that the debate could, at least be somewhat channelled. I had thought I'd further clarified my intentions by posting very specific questions at the conclusion of each of each introductory posting. I guess that didn't work.
I have already apologized for not presenting all four threads at the same time. I apologize again if you find the distinctions between legislation, ethics, and psychology confusing or counterproductive or whatever the problem seems to be. I assure you, it was not my intention to frustrate you or to deflect rebuttal.
If you like, now that the final thread has been posted, I can copy your questions to that thread and address them in the appropriate arena.
I have already apologized for not presenting all four threads at the same time. I apologize again if you find the distinctions between legislation, ethics, and psychology confusing or counterproductive or whatever the problem seems to be. I assure you, it was not my intention to frustrate you or to deflect rebuttal.
If you like, now that the final thread has been posted, I can copy your questions to that thread and address them in the appropriate arena.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.