Replies

Why do people continue to repeat this lie? The APA never published any studies stating that adult-child sex was not "harmful" (and in fact they released a press release affirming that their position is that it is harmful).

Oh... they only said that is is not as harmful as once believed. Yeah... BIG difference there. You are acting like a sleaze-ball lawyer trying to defend the indefensible on this one. According to the study, sexual relationships between adults and children are not as harmful as once believed, and not all childhood victims of sexual abuse necessarily suffer mental illness as a result. YES, the APA, by minimizing the effects on the child, of an adult having sex with children, is taking steps toward normalizing it if not condoning it.

And, the DSM-IV Bible now contends, unless "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (DSM-IV, p. 528). So long as adults having sexual activity with children are not impaired or distressed by their behavior, there is no DSM-IV diagnosable mental disorder. So, as long as the pedophile functions "normally" on the job and out and about other people.

And, yes, only after a LOT of outrage, from the public and Congressman Tom DeLay, over the report, did the APA Board of Trustees finally write a resolution that stated that the APA "repudiates and disassociates itself from any organization or publication that advocates sexual interaction between children and adults."

Just as NOW no longer is about women's rights, rather it is about liberal advocacy, the APA has become a political advocate. In 1973 the APA made a politicized decision to take homosexuality off its list of disorders. Now they have headed the same direction with pedophilia.

Oh... they only said that is is not as harmful as once believed.

NO!

First, it was not the APA but one researcher publishing in the APA's journal. Honestly I'm not sure how seriously the APA took his findings though I don't recall them ever turning it into an official position. Second, you've misstated again what the findings were. It was not that child sexual abuse "is not as harmful as once believed", but that for SOME children the effects of child sexual abuse does not lead to as significant emotional damage (as in maladjustment) as previously thought. In other words, while it found that all victims of child sexual abuse suffered emotional damage, the damage for some (note: some means not all) of the victims was not as severe as typically expected. Why some people find such a finding objectionable, I have no idea -- it does not sound like a "legitimization" of pedophilia or even a weakening of any position against it -- if the results are objectionable, argue against the methodolgy and conclusions, don't argue that you don't like the consequences.

Anyway, NARTH got wind of the study and somehow -- I don't know what twist of logic or wording they used -- were able to make it sound like the study was claiming that adult-child sexual relationships were not harmful and possibly even beneficial to the child involved. I'm not sure if NARTH simply managed to twist such wording from the study or outright lied, but it didn't matter to people willing to listen to propaganda without doing any fact checking -- Dr. Laura really helped news of the "study" take off.

You also argue regarding the APA's position on DSM-IV diagnosis. Now, I'm not sure why you bring it up as the American Psychological Association has nothing to do with it, but I'll bite anyway. It seems as though you're reading into more than is there. They were speaking of diagnosis for a specific disorder, but that does not imply -- nor does the APA make the claim -- that child sexual abuse from someone who does not have symptoms of DSM-IV shouldn't be a concern. It's kind of how like an auto theif might not necessarily be a kleptomaniac -- it's a medical diagnosis (or rather a lack of one), but it doesn't make their actions any more acceptable.