Thursday May 20, 7:00 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: Family Research Council

The Family Research Council (FRC) issues a press release in response to a statement made on May 12 by the authors of a recent child sexual abuse study, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the APA Bulletin (July 1998). The research authors' statement, printed on APA letterhead, criticized the FRC's position on the study. The FRC's press release:

Unfortunately, the response of the authors to criticisms of their study, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, "serves only to further obfuscate the issue of whether they condone sex between an adult and a child or an adolescent if the minor gives "informed consent." But the study itself admits that attitudes towards child sexual abuse (CSA) are indeed informed by the belief in its intrinsic harmfulness: "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" [p.46].

The authors began their study by stating their alleged aim. "Our goal was to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?" [p.22]. One need not go beyond the title to realize that the purported goal is an utter sham. Their study is based on "college samples" and not the population at large. Alfred C. Kinsey's discredited study produced the skewed results he wanted in much the same way.

Why is it that one of the authors, Robert Bauserman, who cites his writings several times in this study, fails to mention his article, "Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective," published in Paidika, the Journal of Pedophilia? [See Paidika web site, Issue 5.] Nor does he mention his article in Vol. 20 of the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he defends Theo Sandfort's Research on "Man-Boy Sexual Relations." His introduction states: "It is argued that moral condemnation of such relationships, combined with a prevailing ideology of boy 'victims' and adult 'perpetrators,' results in efforts by Sandfort's critics to attack and discredit his research rather than evaluate it objectively."

Methodological problems in the APA "meta-analysis" abound. First: Of the 59 studies included in the analysis, over 60% of the data are drawn from one single study done over 40 years ago. Twenty-three of the "usable studies" are "unpublished" [p. 27]. These authors purposely excluded from their review any studies that were based totally or largely on "clinical" or "legal" sample cases of child sexual abuse. Their reason: Clinical patients "are more likely than nonclinical participants to recall events that can be classified as CSA [child sexual abuse], thus inflating the CSA-maladjustment relationship. ...Legal samples are also likely to contain the more serious cases, limiting their generalizability." "College samples were used for several reasons. First, this population provides the largest group of studies on nonclinical populations, which are essential for understanding CSA in the general population." Thus, even though, as the authors admit, "about 50% of U.S. adults have some college exposure," they used studies that excluded half of the adult population because they wanted only "nonclinical" studies [pp. 24-26]. In other words, they didn't include the most serious cases of child sexual abuse in their study.

Second: According to the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, headed by Dr. Paul J. Fink, which has analyzed the study, the authors loaded their analysis with data involving primarily mild adult-child interactions involving little or no physical contact. Rather than focusing on child sexual abuse, the 1956 study on which they largely relied asked about college students' sexual encounters during childhood and adolescence, usually in public places. These were primarily noncontact encounters, from which one would expect to find less permanent harm. The studies also included sexual experiences of children by themselves, with another child, and with an adolescent.

Dr. Paul Fink, Past President of the American Psychiatric Association, told Dr. Laura Schlessinger, "It is as if a study that purports to examine the effects of being shot in the head contained a majority of cases in which the marksman missed. Such research might demonstrate that being shot in the head generally has no serious or lasting effects!"

Third: The authors have recommended a redefinition of "child sexual abuse" for scientific purposes. If it was "a willing encounter" between "a child and an adult" or "an adolescent and adult" with "positive reactions" on the part of the child or adolescent, it would no longer be called "child sexual abuse." It would be labeled scientifically as "adult-child sex," or "adult-adolescent sex." The authors want society to use a "value-neutral term." The authors claim that "lasting negative effects of [child sex abuse] were not pervasive among [sexually abused] students," especially males. Furthermore, in the last sentence of their study they reveal their intent regarding moral and legal definitions: "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." By clear implication, if the negative effects of adult-child sex could be lessened, this should be followed by a lessening of societal approbation of sexual relations between adults and children or adolescents. And this is exactly what the study attempts to do by asserting that "CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions" [p. 46]. Indeed, are we really to believe -- as the authors assert -- that such relations between adults and children or adolescents may be properly characterized as "willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions"? It doesn't take a psychologist to understand the horrendous ramifications to sexually abused children if the presumption of psychological harm becomes an element that must be proven in a criminal case in order to convict a molester.

Fourth: It is a travesty for the authors to attempt to distinguish between "consent" and "informed consent." The response serves only to further obfuscate the issue of whether they condone sex between an adult and a child or an adolescent if the minor gives "informed consent." Neither law, science, ethics, nor morals recognizes any consent other than "informed consent" -- that which is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. No psychologist in his or her right mind would ever perform any study or experiment on any individual without making certain in writing that they had such consent. However, the authors made no such attempt to clarify any distinctions about "consent" in their study.

Furthermore, they have acknowledged in their response why our criticism is valid and why their study is seriously flawed. Our position and their admission is that: "In an ethical and legal perspective, consent means informed consent which implies a certain level of knowledge and life experience. We neither stated nor implied that children can give informed consent to such experiences." That is why the authors' premise and the basis for the conclusions in their study, that the children in the studies "consented" or were "willing" participants in adult-child sex must be rejected, and why this study should be rejected as "junk science." Whatever the children's perceptions were, we know, and the authors now admit, that the children were not capable of legally, ethically, morally, mentally, or emotionally consenting to sex with anybody, much less an adult. Thus, what we are left with is a study that should never have seen the light of day, much less publication in a professional journal.

Finally: The futility of the author's attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on the monstrous crime of child sexual abuse is revealed in the example provided in their response, where they assert that their study is no different from another recent study showing that the children suffering from cancer actually adjust better than previous research had indicated. This is good news, but the analogy suffers catastrophic meltdown when one realizes that the fact that some children adjust to the horror of cancer better than others in no way lessens the awful truth that cancer is a deadly enemy which is in every case destructive to the organism, as is the damage wrought by children who have been victimized sexually by preying adults. Would anyone suggest that we no longer view such psychologically well-adjusted children as cancer victims or lessen our resolve to eradicate cancer? Wouldn't there be unanimous condemnation of anyone who suggested that this cancer study be used as a basis for injecting "willing" or "consenting" children with cancer cells?

The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and their defenders and every child molester who wants to have sex with our children and grandchildren will use this study to try to change how we protect children from sexual abuse in our public policies and laws, and to escape or lessen their punishment for sexual abuse of children. NAMBLA's web site hails the study as "The Good News About Man/Boy Love." They claim that the study in the "prestigious Psychological Bulletin" shows "that the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science." Why haven't the authors and the APA condemned NAMBLA's exploitation of the study and their denial of the truth about child sexual abuse, rather than making a feeble attempt to rebut legitimate criticism of the study and its publication?

Sexually abused children find it very hard to tell an adult that they've been molested. The molester often threatens or blackmails them into silence. They are told that they will get into trouble because adults will think it's their fault. That's the most insidious message conveyed by this study -- if children are capable of making an "informed consent," and they are not, then they are capable of assuming the consequences -- thus it would be their fault after all. The eventual result will be the repeal of all laws against sex with children and child pornography. That is the agenda of NAMBLA and every child molester.

The APA claims that "the sexual abuse of children is wrong and harmful to its victims." When first questioned about why they published the study, their response was that ``publication does not imply endorsement." If it's valid science why can't you endorse it and if it isn't, why did you publish it? We believe this study is an example of "garbage in, garbage out." The premise, that children can "consent" to sex with adults, is wrong; therefore, it doesn't matter that the authors accurately applied "meta-analysis" to reach a "logical" conclusion. The conclusion is no more reliable than the premise on which it is based. On May 14, 1999, the APA not only defended their publication of this study, their CEO, Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D, defended the study itself on MSNBC stating: "It isn't a bad study, it's been peer-reviewed ...it's a good study." They can't have it both ways. This is reprehensible and deserves the strongest public condemnation. Unless renounced, the chief assertion of pedophiles will have been validated and the consequences to children will be disastrous.


SOURCE: Family Research Council
For more information or interviews, call the FRC Press Office.

Top of Page
 

You Can Help!! Want to get involved in the enactment of child laws, ~ but don't know how?		Link Here 3 easy steps that will enable you to impact child laws.
Provided by Pandora's Box

 
Link here for a sample letter
you can send to state legislators
 
Also see ~
"Adult-Child Sex: Is It Abuse or Misuse?"

Return to "Controversial Study" Main Page