“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”- Alfred C. Kinsey
Paidika Blues and The Kinsey Legacy
Some of the most vocal proponents of “paedophile rights” rather than paedophile treatment include Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Judith Levine, all of whom have taken on the mantle of proving to the world that child abuse is vastly overestimated and the problem may not even exist. The media, while touting sensationalist stories and stoking fear on the one hand, has also given a great deal of coverage to these views. It is especially dangerous when we realize that Messer’s Rind, Bauserman and Ms. Levine while offering some valid points of contention, have also produced shoddy research and biased data which they then present as fact.
Child abuse is the source of many complex and problematic issues that should not trivialized and its social impact and brevity reduced. This has fed into a bastion pf para-logistical and para-moralistic discourse 1 further muddying the waters of sexual abuse as a whole. The academic credentials of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman are negated by their astonishing bias which amounts to a trumpeting of paedophile rights at the expense of their child victims.
Rind’s influential collection of studies on the impact of child abuse, in summary, came to the conclusion that abuse was a symptom of family dysfunction rather than sexual abuse. 2 Statistics were produced from select college samples to prove this point. Other conclusions suggested that the age of consent was subject to whether or not violence is involved. If the child – with no distinction to age – gives consent, then it is not abuse. If violent coercion emerges then this is abuse. Even the term “abuse” was to be replaced by the “adult-child” or adult-adolescent sex.
Once again, paedophile apologists fail to distinguish between the emotional differences between child and adult, the mature and immature; they fail to address the effects of abuse from non-coercive methods thus excluding the highly manipulative nature of paedophiles, child molesters and predators within a family setting. They place the onus on the child as instigator rather than the victim and manage to twist socio-cultural statistics to fit their own clear bias for sex between adults and children. This is not to say that all the data collected was without merit, but the methods by which they collected this data and the final conclusions they came to were very far from impartial.
The Journal of Paidika published in the Netherlands (where the age of sexual consent is twelve) is, in its own words: “…a scholarly journal which seeks to examine the range of cultural, historical, psychological, and literary issues pertaining to consensual adult-child sexual relationships and desires. The journal is attempting to create a “history of record”. The Journal is subject to academic peer-review and is subscribed to by prestigious institutions such as the British Library and by the Library of Congress.” Unfortunately, while this implies rigorous science and solid objectivity, the reality is somewhat different.
Paidika by its own admission is essentially a journal of paedophilia which is concerned with placing the scientific acceptance of paedophile’s rights firmly on the academic agenda. However, reading the journal one is left with the overwhelming realization that there is only pseudo-science to be found, gift-wrapped for the paedophile intelligentsia. Rind and Bausermann have been publishing articles in the Journal a number of years before their “meta-analysis” appeared on the scene. Both have gone out of their way to promote and defend the scientific justification for seeing paedophilia as just another way to express oneself sexually, when clearly this is a travesty of the facts and as un-scientific as it is immoral.
Persons such as Judith Levine can be commended for raising the issue of child agency power, overprotection and those profiting from child abuse. However, her simplification and selective data is dangerously misleading. What is especially disturbing is the underreported fact that her key source for much of her statistical data and analyses came from her hero Lawrence Stanley for whom academic paedophilia was not simply confined to white papers. He was convicted in absentia, by a Dutch court in 1998 for sexual abuse of three 7 to 10-year-old girls and faces a three-year prison sentence if he returns to the Netherlands. With the Netherlands reputation regarding paedophilia we can imagine that the case details must have been rather convincing.
At the time of writing, Stanley has yet to face charges for sexually assaulting a girl in Canada who was under the age of 14 and according to a wire services report in The Miami Herald and was finally arrested and charged with possession of child pornography in Brazil. For someone who proposes an age of consent to be dropped to twelve and with many of her sources from closet or “practicing” paedophiles, we can understand how Levine’s bias then colours her very selective research. 3 While Levine believes paedophiles can be “cured” the evidence suggests otherwise. Paedophilia can be controlled but it cannot - so far - be cured as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers clearly state: “There is no known ‘cure.’ ”4
The US paedophile activists have received much support from the liberal traditions of Scandinavia and Northern Europe which have also given opportunities for more bizarre forms of “sexual liberation” to take hold. The Netherlands seems to have a strange predilection for this kind of deviancy, where an often valuable and responsible progressive tradition seems to go headlong over the edge. In fact, in Holland the audacity of Dutch paedophiles fighting for their right to abuse children in their own country launched a new political party in May 2006 called The Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party (NVD) which stands for some interesting forms of “emancipation” including:
* Private possession of child pornography to be allowed; (though a ban on trading such material)
* The broadcasting of pornography on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.
* Toddlers should be given sex education.
* Youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.
* Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal.
* Everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.
* The legalization of all soft and hard drugs.
* Free train travel for all.
This is similar to the way monotheistic religions work by including a few vital truths floating in a sea of ponerological influences. The above manifesto borders on a tragic-comedy however.
Sweden too have gone one step further than the Netherlands by lifting the ban that had been imposed on homosexuality in 1944, along with…Bestiality. According to the country's first government-commissioned study horses are the species most often sexually abused. The government last year tasked the Swedish Animal welfare Agency to determine the scope of the problem including whether or not the animals suffer psychologically from the abuse. A person can be found guilty of cruelty to animals if prosecutors can prove that the animal suffered physical or psychological injury. One has to question from which reality those who presided over the legalization of such a law and what criteria they used to arrive at such a conclusion other than the simple reason they were quite partial to these activities themselves. Having sex with animals and then using tax payer’s money to determine if the animal enjoyed the experience seems to be going beyond the bounds of political correctness.
Meanwhile, as money being spent on commissioned studies to determine whether horses have Post Traumatic Stress, victimised children are falling through the net and justice is being ignored. This understandably raises questions regarding the suitability of a judicial system that legalises sex with animals while claiming to uphold the moral integrity required for sexual abuse cases of human beings. It seems that we should be not only keeping a watchful eye on our children, but our pets as well.
Finland also has curious laws which appear to favour predators. In 1996 police discovered a “massive computer library of child pornography that included pictures of torture, mutilation, and cannibalism.” However, the owner of the child pornography evaded arrest because distributing hard-core child pornography is a minor offence in Finland. The insanity of misplaced liberalism continues. Partnered with censorship and prudish paranoia at the other end of the scale, leaves us all in a sea of disempowerment and chaos. This in turn, is perfect for the upper echelons to indulge their own sexual exploitation away from the public eye. Such cover and confusion owes its debt to its advocates so enamoured by the pseudo-sexologists and psychiatric fraternity…
Notes
