|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
The Jonathan Dolhenty Archive |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
The Dolhenty Report A Commentary on the Human Condition by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty JULY 1999
Some people may not like what I say here. But the truth is on my side, as is science, philosophy, and the other promoters of knowledge. The principle I put forth here is: "Knowledge or informed opinion should never be suppressed simple because it does not agree with someone's social, political, or moral agenda." We have a subscription to Human Events, a very conservative tabloid-sized periodical published by Eagle Publishing. In the May 28th issue there is an article by Joseph A. D'Agostino titled "Pro-Child Advocates Challenge Study Legitimizing Pedophilia." It relates to a study published in the American Psychological Association Journal which says few children are harmed if they consent to an incident of sexual behavior with an adult. According to the D'Agostino's article, the Family Research Council is upset about the publication of the study and gathered a group of congressmen, scientists, and victims of pedophiles at the National Press Club on May 12th to "rebut" the study. Talk-radio guru Dr. Laura Schlessinger (who, by the way, is not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but a physiologist) strongly condemned the study and talk-radio guru Michael Reagan railed against it on his show and most conservatives seem to be incensed about its publication. According to D'Agostino, the study suggests that a "willing (sexual) encounter" between an adult and a child should "be labeled simply 'adult-child sex,' a value-neutral term," instead of being labeled "abuse." Furthermore, the study suggests that children rarely suffer psychological harm if the sexual contact is "consensual." This latter suggestion seems to have some conservatives going into orbit. Now, I want to make one thing clear. I do not want to deal here with the morality or the legality of the adult-child sex issue. The law is clear on this issue for now and the moral authorities in general have condemned that type of activity. Furthermore, I don't wish to debate the age-of-consent issue here. The only thing I want to express is my surprise at the rage which has ensued over the publication of the study and the results it suggests. The question is: Does sexual contact between an adult and a child have a detrimental psychological effect on the child if the child has "consented" (not legally, but psychologically or philosophically) to the incident? I suspect it has always been assumed that it does, or it should have. In fact, many would insist it must have. But is this true? This study, according to the critics, suggests it does not have and therefore should be condemned. Why? It appears to be a case of "political correctness," with the conservatives (who have heretofore been critics of liberal political correctness) now crying "foul," this study does not give the results we want, it is not "politically correct" in our view, so we condemn the study. I have been highly critical of the federal government's attempt to hide the results of studies with which it disagrees (for example, the DARE study which showed that that drug education program was a waste of money and was not effective). I have also criticized the liberal establishment for denouncing studies they disagreed with and attempting to hide the "politically incorrect" results. So, now I have to accuse my conservative friends of the same tactics and say they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Whether or not adult-child sex should be considered illegal or immoral is not the issue at stake here. The study speaks to a legitimate scientific issue: "Is psychological harm done?" Now, a couple of questions. Didn't anyone ask whether such a study had been done before and what results were found? Didn't anyone ask whether the results found in previous studies agree with this new controversial one? Didn't anyone out there in the conservative world bother to check the research literature? Well, I did. A cursory glance, to be sure, but a check of some of the literature nevertheless, going back to the 1930s. A few items of interest. 1934 - Lauretta Bender and Abraham Blau, "The Reaction of Children to Sexual Relations with Adults," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 7: 500-518. (1) "at least some co-operation of the child in the (sexual) activity, and (2) in some cases the child assumed an active role in initiating the relationship," and the children "rarely acted as injured parties." 1938 - Karl M. Bowman, "Psychiatric Aspects of the Problem, Symposium: Challenge of Sex Offenders," Mental Hygiene 22: 10-20. Pointed out that the notion that the child is an unwilling victim is not always true and in some cases the child is the aggressor. 1939 - Joseph Wortis, "Sex Taboos, Sex Offenders and the Law," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 9:554-564. Study shows a lack of evidence supporting the traumatic effects of sexual experience on children and says that the belief in such harmful effects is mistaken. 1954 - California Sexual Deviation Research, State of California Department of Mental Hygiene. Indicated that over 65% of the children they studied were considered to have been "actively participating victims." 1962 - J.W. Mohr, "The Pedophilias: Their Clinical, Social, and Legal Implications," Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal 7: 255-260. Corroborates the impression that many children are willing victims and stated that many children are "psychologically and socially predisposed to such (sexual) acts and some are openly seductive." 1975 - Matti Virkkunen, "Victim-precipitated Paedophilia Offences," British Journal of Criminology 15. Cites a study that showed that 75% of the sexual offenses against children studied did not involve active resistance on the part of the child. During her own study, involving 64 victims with an average age of nine to ten years, she found tht 48% were found to be victim-precipitated relationships. The above are just a few I found. Most of them I referenced came to a conclusion similar to this: There is generally no serious harmful psychological effect on a child as the result of a sexual encounter with an adult provided the child was a "willing" participant. These old studies seem to support the results of the new controversial one. This does not, of course, provide any "justification" or "legitimization" of such sexual encounters. It is unfortunate that anyone would condemn a study simply because he or she disagrees with the outcome. A study should be criticized only for legitimate scientific reasons, such as bad methodology or faulty design and so forth. If the recent study published by the APA had resulted in the conclusion that adult-child sexual encounters were definitely psychologically harmful to children, wouldn't the conservatives be praising the results saying, "We told you so!"? But the study didn't result in the desired conclusion. So the conservatives condemn the publication of the study. This is not the way science works; it is not the way knowledge is furthered. Those conservatives who are upset with the study should know better. Evidently they don't. Too bad. Science marches on -- nevertheless. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
||||
|
Main Page & Index |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.