Bloodless Coup

Bro,
There's a peer reviewed journal that responds to the findings which the Congress condemned:
"These findings tentatively suggest that use of the term sexual abuse to describe all child–adult sexual interactions may be of questionable scientific validity because use of the term abuse presupposes harm. (Nonetheless, few psychologists would question the legal and moral validity of the term 'abuse.')"
Sexual interest in children, child sexual abuse, and psychological sequelae for children. Bromberg, Daniel S.; Johnson, Blair T.; Psychology in the Schools, Vol 38(4), Jul 2001. pp. 343-355. [Peer Reviewed Journal]

This is hardly a conspiracy of political conservatives playing the victim, and if you'll notice all but 13 democrats voted to condemn this as well. These findings lead to a misleading conclusion without context, because the simple self report of a child who's had sexual contact with an adult is not an adequate measure of the consequences of this at-best unnecessary contact; poor academic performance and many other factors follow this behavior at the low extreme, and at the worse end there's suicide, self mutilation, and an inability to maintain relationships. Many children do not understand the unspoken trust that is broken when an adult exploites that child for sexual pleasure, and they do not realize this until they become adults (and many who are sexually abused will never become adults, because they never mature socially and emotionally).

Wow, so many assumptions to wade through. First of all, how does any of this promote "liberal values" and why does Congress need to condemn research findings? I am not up on this particular situation, so I am curious.

Second of all, I think without looking at the context of the findings (how do they define child and adult? a 16 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult, by some age-of-consent guidelines...is that where the study mean the concept of harm is ambiguous?) Obviously Morris you are assuming a different child/adult ratio, but knowing how scientific conclusions work, often you (the general) have to be very careful interpreting them without clearly examining the hypotheses, methodology and variable definitions. Again, not knowing the study, I hesitate to comment on the conclusion. Now, you might post a link to the article which shows that what they are talking about is 40 year olds and ten year olds, which is quite another story than teens separated by a couple of year over the dividing line of adulthood.

That all but 13 voting members of the House voted to condemn an article in a top peer-reviewed scientific journal the key thing relevant to my point - not the nature of the article itself. The big problem here is that there are many points, not just conservative points, that you can't raise without being decried (in this case, as being in support of molesting children, which these researchers certainly are not). That kind of behavior limits all sorts of academic endeavors. And in many colleges and disciplines it's the "conservatives" (an increasingly meaningless term, but it's what we have to work with in this context) that limit scientific exploration.

As in earlier comments on academic threads, I maintain that academia is very conservative, especially as in "resistant to change." I always wonder where these commie pc departments are, because I haven't studied or worked in one, and don't really know anyone else who does. Really, I find that conservative middle class values (as Armand noted that most of these universities are red-state) of the Professor Dad with Wife at home (or in a supporting role kind of job not career) supporting her hubby's climb up the corporate ladder are prevalent. It's like the 1950s! Most of the research that I see done by my colleagues is similarly rooted in widely accepted, moderate values. Political activism (in either direction) is not discussed or encouraged. If your research strays too far outside of conventional wisdom - i.e. they want something new-ish, but not so different they can't clearly identify where it belongs - it won't get recognized.

Have you read the Discworld novels? The descriptions of the Wizards at the Unseen University with their complacency are a spot on as a portrayal of this kind of conservatism.

Here's some quotes from two of the major articles emphasizing the neutral and positive effects of sexual contact between adults and children:
"In the British sample of women studied by Nash and West (1985) about a fifth reported sexual encounters involving physical contact with an adult at least 5 years older than themselves when they were under 16. Most consisted of bodily caressing and genital fondling; only 2% of respondents reported sexual intercourse. However, in spite of most intrusions being limited, the great majority of women reported having reacted at the time with fear, confusion, anger, or shame; neutral reactions of curiosity or amusement were each mentioned by only 14% of the abused women. This is a typical result."

"However, absence of physical damage, and the fact that some primitive societies have viewed these behaviors as unproblematic, is irrelevant to the potential psychological harm when a culture defines sexual contacts between adults and children as horrendous crime."

"Of course, the fact that many who have experienced sexual contact with or approaches from adults when they were boys claim to have been unaffected in no way detracts from clinical evidence that sometimes serious, lasting, and occasionally devastating effects may follow (King, 1997; Watkins and Bentovim, 1992)."
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/boys_west.htm

"In nearly all cases, claims of positive outcomes were from the subjects themselves."
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/psycorr.htm
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/psycorr.htm

Here are the two other articles included in the meta-analysis I referenced in my first post:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n3_v34/ai_20444907
http://www.itp-arcados.net/sonder/totengraeber/rtbstudie/rtb.meta.analysis1998.html

And, of course, if you actually read the text, the resolution includes: "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." It is not the research itself being condemned, only the conclusions reached by the author that new legislation should change existing laws based on very limited suspicions that SOME cases of adult-child sexual contact are not harmful. You encourage you to read the entire text here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c106ZbarVR::
It's quite compelling.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear. 1) what did they condemn? and 2) how was it that what they condemned would "lead to 'liberal' values"? Again, I'm not debating that you can find good science about the ill-effects of child abuse. I'm just confused about the particular case Armand is referencing.

Binky - Morris sort of answers the former, so as to the latter, they didn't directly say it was going to lead to liberal values, but the vote was scheduled it make it look like (if you'll excuse the expression) liberals were in bed with child molesters. Votes don't just happen. This was done solely so that 1) the House Republican leadership could assert its strong opposition to child molestation (there's going out on a limb) and 2) some liberal Democrats who didn't think Congress should be voting against scientific studies, or thought that this was just to craven and ridiculous a political move, would look bad.

And Morris I still think you are letting the House off way too easily here. Who's better qualified to interpret the conclusions of an article - the researcher responsible for it, or the members of the US House of Representatives? And beyond that, you are acknowledging that they don't like his conclusions and feel so strongly about it that they think it's the business of the US government to condemn them. If that's not a rather serious pressure being brought to bear against a research agenda (you know, the point of my post), what is?

Hmmm, I guess I am just a dummy...because I couldn't tell from your discussion if they were censuring a specific article or several pieces of research. Not that important anyway.

The text is accessible from #278 on this page:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/ROLL_200.asp
(click on H CON RES 107)
And it refers to Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998, the text of which can be found here:
http://www.itp-arcados.net/sonder/totengraeber/rtbstudie/rtb.meta.analysis1998.html

Essentially, the purpose of the legislation is protective. For instance, to use the adage, if someone yelled fire in a crowded theatre, and researchers found that sometimes everybody had a good laugh, and other times people were trampled and died, I think it would be appropriate to condemn the conclusion that yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay/good, even some of the time. Why take the chance. We would need so much more than the self reported bragging of male adolescents who want to act macho (which are the only group that even maybe aren't going to be at great risk) before changing legislation. I would agree that pressure is being brought to bear against a research agenda, because this is a dangerous agenda, and I think it's appropriate to bring political danger against dangerous agendas. All this article (and the other ones cited above) really says is that they're not absolutely sure that consentual sex between adults and male adolescents is harmful to the male adolescents, like we know it is for girls (see the above quote) or pre-adolescent males.

Morris, you write:

"I would agree that pressure is being brought to bear against a research agenda, because this is a dangerous agenda, and I think it's appropriate to bring political danger against dangerous agendas."

The point I was making, and yes, I'll make it YET AGAIN, is that we don't know that something is dangerous or not until we've been able to study it. The problem is that lots of things are treated as off limits to discuss, much less have any chance at the kinds of grants that are needed to fund many studies. This is clearly Congress taking some of the steps it can to try and disuade certain types of research.

You also write - "Why take the chance?" Because understanding something means understanding it in all its variations, not just the simplest or most common effects. In this case certain sets clearly suffer, but other sets may not. Getting at that distinction and its causes are presumably matters of considerable importance to these researchers, and matters that have important implications for public policy. Supposedly universities and researchers are supposed to help us understand the nature of the world. That should include both the results or studies that happily reinforce our beliefs and those that present findings that confound us or, in some cases, creep us out.

The very idea of a "dangerous" research agenda is scary to me. No, I'm not suggesting we should support all research without question, no I don't want to repeat the Milgram experiments, no I don't want to feed cocaine to toddlers and see how they respond to cognitive tests. I find it very difficult, however, to see how the intrusion of a congressional sanction on research is helpful to the scientific process, beyond setting laws or policy that protects the subjects of the research. Again, my sense of this sanctioned research is that is asked retrospective questions and was not experimental in design, and therefore it was only the conclusions drawn from the reported comments of the interviewees that could have been objectionable. This is problematic.

We went down this path (partways at least) a while ago whe nwe talked about the "crack baby" policies and their disconnect from actual research. This shows the danger of allowing policy to run away from science. In this case, my brief perusal of the article seems to show that it doesn't suggest that child abuse is good, but that there are other factors that may be equally or more important in predicting long-term effects, and that some people report that they are essentially not negatively impacted in their daily lives by their past abuse. I have seen a similar discussion (in some ways) about how survivors of human rights abuses cope later in life, and how some "put it behind them" and do fine, while for others it becomes a defining and limiting factor on the rest of their lives. The authors of the study makes a point - in their conclusion - of discussing the difference in "harmfulness" and "wrongfulness," and the relation of these concepts to law and morality.

Finally, it is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ( Money, 1979 ), then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. 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.

While before reading the link Morris provided I thought the congressional act was unnecessary and at least silly, now I think it was wrong-headed and indicative of the way that bad policy makes for bad use of science. It's typical of the way that a complex and difficult conclusion is portrayed as simplistic and anti-moral (rather than a more accurate "amoral" or neutral scientific view - though that is a whole 'nother debate and I don't feel like getting into Kuhn today). I'm not going to say that the legislature has no business using and commenting on research, because hopefully, an informed public policy makes use of the expertise of science. But when moral and legal position varies from the scientific conclusions (and again, my ignorance manifests itself because I don't know if this is a well-supported finding in the literature, or just a "one-timer") the the political realm has the duty to provide an alternate justification for its policy choice rather than to condemn the scientific finding.

And in a postscript on politics and science, this article from the AP.

Binky,
You wrote, "It's typical of the way that a complex and difficult conclusion is portrayed as simplistic and anti-moral." My concern is exactly the opposite. If the media got hold of this research, we'd see headlines like "adult-child sex not harmful," because that's all they'd have room for in a single line. Most people then wouldn't read the article or the orignial research that says such a conclusion is off base, and people thinking about having sex with a child would have reason to believe it might not hurt them. The dumbed down version of this research is exaclty what makes it so dangerous. What if this research wasn't about adult-boy sex, but about eugenics? It's not the idea of dangerous research that scares me so much as the way research like this has been used to justify the suffering of children and minorities so many times.

So, you're saying it's better to just condemn the findings and suppress the conclusions than to risk that idiots dumb it down?

Binky the comment you made above (on the night of the 23rd) was excellent. Thanks for those insights.

Aha, once again our capacity to love and be loved shows itself. ;)

Binky,
Bringing pressure against a dangerous agenda is placing the findings of a single study that adult-child sex is beneficial within the context of so much research that suggests otherwise. Let's be honest, one out of twenty studies is likely to find .05 level significance even if the findings are not accurate. Let's remember that not all studies of Cox-2 drugs have found them to be dangerous. Personally, I'd like to have seen a moral context provided by the bully pulpit, but honestly Clinton was the punch line for enough late night jokes, without coming out against some kind of "sexual relations."

Do your conservative friends know you are a Maoist, Morris? The people are the most important and must be protected, but are really too dumb to be trusted, so we will censor the information they get, and suppress anything that might challenge their safe thoughts.

A complicated and potentially difficult to understand conclusion has now become a "dangerous agenda"? "Adult-child sex is beneficial"? The conclusions of the meta-analysis don't say that at all. In fact, it looks to me like they are trying to refine the meters on determining the harmfulness of adult-child sex so that it is more evident. The point of the study seems to be not that adult child sex is beneficial, but that including the simple transgressive or socially disapproved kinds of sex (the 15/18 year old scenario I described above) muddies the waters on measuring harm and leads us to underestimate the harm caused by CSA. By making that category too broad, it in effect diminishes the impact as it is able to be measured by statistics, and ends up making the impact of "real" (for lack of a better word) sexual abuse seem less harmful in the reports of survivors. Have you even looked at statements about sampling or the discussion of self-reporting? You've studied a lot of psych Morris, but I think you have a ways to go in understanding the process of research design and implementation.

Maybe I was wrong with Maoist, perhaps it should be more like Stalinist....inconventient information and all that. You know, mistrust the people and the media.

Binky,
Thankyou for name calling, that always ups the cognitive level of a discussion. I find it especially funny that you call me a Maoist for objecting to pedophilia when Mao was reputed to be, in fact, a pedophile. As far as the idea I refute, that adult-child sex is beneficial, this is from the above cited article:
"The research findings do not support the view that sexual contacts between boys and adults are typically experienced as negative or that they are invariably harmful. In contrast, results from both college-based samples and general population samples indicate that the majority of such experiences are evaluated by males as neutral or positive."
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/psycorr.htm
However, these results are limited to nonclinical research.
And I do wonder how you got the idea of "we will censor the information they get, and suppress anything that might challenge their safe thoughts" out of "placing the findings of a single study that adult-child sex is beneficial within the context of so much research that suggests otherwise." This reminds me of when Tim Robbins got so upset that people criticized his opposition of the war in Iraq that he suggested people were trying to take that right away. There is a difference between criticism and censorship, between providing a moral or scientific context for what you admit is "A complicated and potentially difficult to understand conclusion" and arresting those who do research. By the way, I resent your suggestion that I'm a Stalinist, having been in the Al Myer camp for many years (although the first time I watched Better off Dead, I was admittedly a bigger fan of Taylor Negron as the mailman).

Would someone please explain to me, using very small words and short sentences, what you are arguing about?

Well, if we're going to pile on Mao, don't forget his opium addiction and chronic (resulting) constipation which made him quite an asshole. A Maoist isn't someone who is an opium addict or a pedophile, but rather someone who practices a particular form of mass-based authoritarian politics. But you knew that, and were just being clever.

Which forms the basis of my next comment: you are clever enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm. But in the name of pacifying Baltar as well, I will explain.

First, two of the most extreme cases of fear of knowledge and governmental action to suppress it were the variations of Marxism practiced under Stalin and Mao. Each was theoretically for the people ("The people are the most important and must be protected") but fundamentally distrusted their ability to think for themselves ("are really too dumb to be trusted") and likewise didn't trust the media's ability or intentions in regard to communicating "facts" and therefore restricted the media ("so we will censor the information they get"). That way, no information that could be "dangerous" could be miscontrued, as it would never enter the public realm ("suppress anything that might challenge their safe thoughts").

In the case of your comments supporting the congressional condemnation of the research findings, I find them to be consistent with this approach to the media's reporting of research, government action and the people.

On the reporting of conclusions:

The dumbed down version of this research is exaclty what makes it so dangerous.

On the people:

Most people then wouldn't read the article or the orignial research that says such a conclusion is off base, and people thinking about having sex with a child would have reason to believe it might not hurt them.

On the government's actions:

I think it's appropriate to bring political danger against dangerous agendas.

On the justification for the government condemnation of the research findings:

It's not the idea of dangerous research that scares me so much as the way research like this has been used to justify the suffering of children and minorities so many times.

Insert "counterrevolutionary thinking" for research, and "the people" for children and minorities, and voila.

And you actually quote a key section: "are evaluated by males as neutral or positive" (italics mine). If you look at the research design, conclusions, and all elements of this study what you find are multiple - and to me clear - statements that this is a summary review of respondent reports of their experience of CSA. It is not an experimental study of CSA and long-term effects measured by psych professionals. As such, the conclusions are restricted. Likewise, the authors take pains at every step to qualify their results and put them in context of the difference between fact and report, science and morality.

Finally, on the difference between "criticism and censorship," I would say that criticism would use counter arguments, or alterative rationales, and would be based on logical, experimental, or factual flaws. If it was unclear that the censorship I posited was for the Maoist ideal, I apologize. However the notion of the legislature offering censure, sanction, condemnation or anything related to this research - because there is a potential for misunderstanding - is ridiculous. I believe they also have a responsibility to be much more thorough in providing a reasoned "why" and an alternate justification.

I want my two dollars....two dollars!

Well, if we're going to pile on Mao, don't forget his opium addiction and chronic (resulting) constipation which made him quite an asshole.

Now who's clever? If you kids can't play nice, I'll turn this car around, so help me. But Binky -- and my apologies Morris -- you sure do withering critique well. Remind me to stay on your side of things.

Binky,
I appreciate your taking the time to explain your concepts and arguments thoroughly. When you say, "However the notion of the legislature offering censure, sanction, condemnation or anything related to this research - because there is a potential for misunderstanding - is ridiculous," I disagree. If professionals in academics or otherwise were as responsible as we'd hope them to be, there would be no legal regulations on their behavior necessary; but they're not, so psychologists sleep with their patients, lawyers conspire with criminal clients, etc., and the public has an interest in monitoring their activities and intervening legally when threatened (in a democracy, this can mean condemnation rather than the Stalinist censorship/suiciding approach). This is exactly the difference between condemnation and censorship that Tim Robbins didn't get, so he thought people who didn't like what he said were trying to censor him. I would think a courtroom experience would be ample example of how groups with different interests in a democracy can dislike another party (the state disliking/condeming the defendant) while preserving the right of the other party to speak, acknowledging the public's interest in being able to provide context for the defendant's behavior. It seems inconsistent to me that you accuse me of misunderstanding the intricacies of research design, but at once expect the media and public to grasp these intricacies even though they have had generally much less statistics and advanced study of human behavior than we have, and my experience with journalists gives me no confidence in their ability to even understand these subtleties (most journalism curricula don't require courses in research design), much less comment on them. Do you want the condemnation to include the specific psychological terminology to give an explanation of this condemnation when the public often uses this terminology in a different way? Maybe I do lack confidence in the ability of the media and people to understand such technical language (some would argue this is exactly the purpose of this language, just as church services were so often given in Latin so that people wouldn't understand and be able to interpret the Bible for themselves). I don't trust the media, the psychologists, or the government to do this well...I just agree with the government's position, so I'm taking their side. It isn't about trust or what anyone else thinks is best, it's about my experience with several people still suffering as adults because when they were kids, adults couldn't keep it in their pants. And most all of the research I've seen in psychology confirms my view on this. Why proceed carelessly when such a threat is involved, why not be cautious?

Morris - Try again. "Government condemnation" can very easily kill areas of research. Academics are pressured, and funding is cut off. What you can basically end up getting is indirect censorship (which I'm against of course, but with your well known lack of respect for minority rights and seeming belief in the need to protect people from certain information, perhaps you don't mind as much as I do).

But beyond that, as you and Binky both point out, this area of research can have really important implications for those who have been involved in these kinds of events. Given that, I think it's appropriate to do what we can to get at the clearest and most detailed understandings of these phenomena that we can. Whether or not Connie Chung and Shepard Smith report the details of a study isn't really relevant. They don't report details on all kinds of things. It would seem to me to be much more important for research to proceed that can allow access to practitioners the most accurate information possible. And actions like this move by the government can get in the way of that. You know what you know. Fine. But we don't know all that there is to know about these things, and by learning more, we can help more people. Caution that blocks understanding is not in an of itself a virtue.

Bro,
You write: "Whether or not Connie Chung and Shepard Smith report the details of a study isn't really relevant. They don't report details on all kinds of things." That's like saying, a child is careless with all sorts of things, but if we don't let them play with this gun, they won't understand it. I'm trying to figure out why caution wouldn't be appropriate here, considering how many times we see sexual abuse as the precursor to all sorts of mental pathology. Pedophiles have "a pattern of cognitive distortions with regard to women and children" (see Bridges, Wilson, and Gacono in the journal of personality assessment 1998...sorry, Binky, I can't find it online), and to let any of this information out that the dangers of adult-child sex have not yet been validated for ALL children when it has for so many would feed into these cognitive distortions.

"Wyre (1997) outlines the dynamics of the molestation process of seductive child sex offenders and describes a number of stages where the child is 'groomed' or desensitized to the offence behavior. Non-sexual physical contact such as playful wrestling or tickling gives way to sexual touching while the child is fully clothed, over time this develops into genital fondling, which later leads to mutual masturbation and oral sex. Throughout this process the offender believes that the child is enjoying the sexual activity and encourages the victim to keep the shared behaviour secret." (Canter, Hughes, and Kirby in Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, December 1998 citing the book by Wyre, Working with Sex Offenders).
Pay particular attention to "the offender believes that the child is enjoying the sexual activity," this is where the danger is. How about we not feed into this belief by letting the media report this without both a moral and scientific context from anyone who can provide it, even the government.

oh good christ! the person about whom this can be said -- "the offender believes that the child is enjoying the sexual activity" -- is not someone who can be swayed by congress or the news. as armand points out, the utility of this sort of thing lies with the practitioners who treat these people, and to deny them ready access to the greatest amount of research possible for political reasons is tantamount to hating knowledge. it's like decrying space travel because we might, someday, disturb aliens who will come to exterminate us.

Morris - You write: "to let any of this information out that the dangers of adult-child sex have not yet been validated for ALL children when it has for so many would feed into these cognitive distortions". What's up with that? You slam the media's understandable inability to provide detail - then say you don't want detail (actually more than that - you're saying flat out that you don't want basic accuracy)? Science is all about detail. We want to understand the intricacies about the way things work. But doing that we can improve lives. Isn't it best to find out exactly what harms whom? To me that would seem key if you want to help people. Just b/c something has general, broad effects doesn't mean that those are what's key to helping people on a case specific basis - and if the goal is helping individuals, I'll say it again, being able to conduct studies that help us understand variation is important. And if the government comes in with a sledgehammer and blocs that, that's a real policy problem that can have grievous consequences.

And on a different note not really relevant to what is under discussion in this thread - who's morality is it that you want the media providing? Ted Turner's, Rupert Murdoch's, the Saudi's, who's? It's easy to say that the media should provide a "moral context" to its reporting ... but who's morality are you going to give that priviledged position?

Bro,
I wonder if you think instructions on how to make chemical and biological weapons (or even nuclear) should be made available to all people. You say: "Isn't it best to find out exactly what harms whom?" By that reasoning, why don't we let the general public run experiments with anthrax or smallpox, to see if we can figure out exactly what harms whom. It's the good of science, with no thought to the consequences. There's a reason that Einstein and others whose research led to the creation of the atom bomb questioned whether they'd done the right thing. There was danger that they didn't foresee, yet in this case there is danger we can foresee. I don't want to live in a technocracy, where the greatest good is science and all moral codes are thrown out because somewhere, sometime, somebody believed something else. As an American society we acknowledge the importance of people not hurting other citizens, this is built into our laws countless times. You argue that just because adult-child sex hasn't been validly proven harmful for everyone (just for everyone but adolescent males), we need to study this regardless of consequences (feeding into cognitive distortions of pedophiles). So why don't we inject people with live smallpox? I'm sure we'll be able to learn all about it from those who don't die, and why should we be concerned with short term consequences when in the long term we'll understand more about how to help people.

Joshua,
Don't be silly; we don't have to worry about disturbing space aliens because they've been all around us for years. You argue that people who believe children enjoy sex with adults are essentially in another reality, and they do, pedophiles live in a fantasy world. What makes this research without scientific and moral context so dangerous is what adults who don't live in a fantasy world may begin to think, that having sex with a child may not hurt that child.

So I guess you and I disagree (shocking I know) - I want to live in a society where we can seek answers that enlighten us to the world around us - including answers that can better the lives of certain individuals. You want to live in some totalitarian state where if someone might get hurt by something it has to be banned. Me, I'm not a fan of that sort of massive and oppressive government.

I'm not going to even bother with your comments about smallpox or weapons plans (you're arguing like O'Reilly), though in a way the latter does show that having information widely available needn't lead to dire effects. It's really easy to find out out to make chemical weapons. And I suspect that you at least used to be able to find fairly detailed plans for nukes in the country's better libraries. And yet even with all this dangerous information around us, somehow we've been able survive as a race.

you're being silly, morris.

what adults who don't live in a fantasy world may begin to think, that having sex with a child may not hurt that child

people have rightly objected that people who smoke knew the adverse consequences long before the surgeon general came along, and i agree. people who don't have the predisposition to pedophilia today, won't use some study, which is part of a vast body of literature reaching complex conclusions, to justify doing something that has largely been villified for as long as we have had what we call civilization (although a) some societies have been better at this than others, and i'm not stating an unequivocal proposition that you can pretend to refute with one outlying example and b) the parameters have changed over time (e.g., the age at which marriage is deemed appropriate)). aside from which, the government, when permitted to intrude so blithely into science and with such devastating results, won't just intrude into the truly prickly issues. it'll intrude on everything its agenda finds odious, which is anathemic to all science (when was the last time you used an antibiotic). i wouldn't cede that power to my government. nor would the constitution have me do so.

Joshua,
You use so many big words, but hopefully I got the gist of your argument. It seems to rest on the idea that there's a group of people who are pedophiles, and they abuse children regardless of social taboos and laws; and there's a group of people who aren't attracted to 17 year olds and below. Of course it's more fuzzy than that. Cantor, Hughes, and Kirby (Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1998) used a multivariate analysis (SSA-1) on 97 adult-child sex crimes and identified two distinct groups of pedophiles, one is the generally exploitive personality (their hypothesis was an aggressive and a criminal-opportunistic group, but the results showed a lot of overlap), and the other which perceives the adult-child sexual relationship as analogous to an adult-adult sexual relationship, characterized by promises of gifts, reassurance, affection, desensitization, oral sex by the adult, and kissing. There's not much we can do to change how the exploitive group exploits children, but the other group is the trouble. They tend to be consumed with stress or depression, and when it gets to a certain point, they have sex with a child as a way to relieve that stress and depression. But if they hear that adult-child sex may not be harmful to children, it won't take as much depression and stress to motivate them because the altrenative (having sex with a child) won't be as bad, avoiding it won't be as important. This is an intrapsychic conflict along a continuum. And speaking of antibiotics, if the government actually stepped in with stronger enforcement keeping doctors from giving antibiotics to people who don't really need them, we'd be a lot less likely to end up with a resistant infection that kills millions of people. And your idea that the government will intrude on everything it finds odious doesn't make any sense because what we're talking about (government condemnation of a particularly dangerous research hypothesis) has already happened, five years ago even, so where's the intrusion on everything?

Bro,
I find it ironic that you argue: "You want to live in some totalitarian state where if someone might get hurt by something it has to be banned." Didn't you support Nader? What was he doing with Unsafe at any Speed, if not condeming things because someone might get hurt? And I have never opposed pedophilia research, it's the reckless conclusion that adult-child sex is not harmful to children (without evidence) that I oppose. And what was Nader doing if not providing a scientific and moral context to the reckless conclusion of GM that the Corvair was safe?

This is an intrapsychic conflict along a continuum.

Fine, Morris. Find a pundit to put up on the news when the story breaks to make that very point. Demand of your media, at the spear's tip of a massive boycott, that they either report things with appropriate sophistication or hire someone who can. Demand of your congresspeople that they provide finance studies exploring counter-hypotheses with equal rigor.

But puh-leeze don't force the rest of us to deal with the least common denominator of research because a) some representative's 3,000 constituents in the Wichita suburbs will appreciate him grandstanding on a topic he knows absolutely nothing about or b) people, like yourself, who claim to believe in science in fact can't stand it when robust scientific studies don't reach conclusions you don't like. You say: "I have never opposed pedophilia research, it's the reckless conclusion that adult-child sex is not harmful to children (without evidence) that I oppose." Exactly my problem with your position in this discussion, and the congresspeople who reflect the same my-way-or-the-highway counterintuitive approach to scientific inquiry.

Finally, Morris, keep the big-word bulls*&t to yourself. It's way too reminiscent of 3d grade, and I've been happy to have that behind me for quite a while now.

Why on Earth would you think I supported Ralph Nader? You both want a bigger state than I do. I can't stand him.

That said, if a mega-corporation is selling a product to thousands across the land that has an unfortunate tendency to explode (or whatever the problem was with the Corvair) - it seems reasonable to bring that to light and inform consumers.

And you continue to mis-state the conclusions of that article. But beyond that - it seems odd to say that you support research, and yet have already decided what you find to be acceptable and unacceptable conclusions to take from the results of studies. You support research that you think won't be "damaging" (as to what is damaging, apparently you get to decide that - ah, such power), but it still looks to me like you don't like studies if you can't control what their findings say.

Joshua,
I'm a little confused as to how opposing a conclusion that isn't based on evidence is against the scientific process. I seem to remember the whole point of science is requiring evidence before saying something is scientifically proven. There is evidence that even consentual adult-child sex is harmful to boys, girls, and female adolescents. There has not been a specific study done on male adolescents who have consentual sex with adults. This is like telling high schoolers (an unsophisticated audience) that there hasn't been a specific study showing it's dangerous to drive over 200 mph while intoxicated. It's been proven dangerous to drive between 75 and 150 mph while intoxicated, but maybe driving over 200 mph is different, maybe it's easier to control the car when going that fast; it hasn't been proven. Or maybe it's like telling high schoolers that there's never been a study proving it's dangerous to drive while doing mushrooms; sure, other drugs have been proven dangerous to use while driving, but never mushrooms. There is speech that is dangerous by commision (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), and there is speech that is dangerous by ommision. My brother made the point that there's much more information on weapons available now than years ago, but nobody's blown up a nuke yet. Of course, there's been that little sarin gas fiasco in Japan, anthrax letters, and a cyanide attempt that vaporized during the WTC bombing; there's been improvised explosives used countless times in Iraq and Israel and the unabomber; and there was that little explosion in Oklahoma City, all in the last decade. I support the government in responding as a parent when the citizens of our country act like children, reckless and without consideration for others.
I'll admit I'm confused as to how it's counterintuitive to research with the hypothesis that adult-child sex is harmful when so much evidence supports that hypothesis.
A clinical study with the hypothesis that adult-male adolescent sex is harmful, if disproven, would be equally persuasive evidence as a study with the hypothesis that adult-male adolescent sex is neutral/beneficial that researchers fail to disprove. There's no detriment to the research from approaching this topic one way or the other.

I support the government in responding as a parent when the citizens of our country act like children, reckless and without consideration for others.

Good. Then we understand each other. Just don't come looking for my vote should you choose to run for office. At least given what you are by implication calling "reckless and without consideration for others."

A clinical study with the hypothesis that adult-male adolescent sex is harmful, if disproven, would be equally persuasive evidence as a study with the hypothesis that adult-male adolescent sex is neutral/beneficial that researchers fail to disprove. There's no detriment to the research from approaching this topic one way or the other.

So why play favorites?

Joshua,
The reason to play favorites is so we don't make it easier for an adult to believe having sex with a child will not hurt that child, for which there is no clinical evidence. It's the reason not to play favorites (since it accomplishes nothing more) that confuses me. And you can not choose to support me when I run for office if you want, but don't come crying to me when I lose to some party hack, and your neighborhood is overrun with stray dogs I would have caught.

While I've been trying to stay away from this thread and do some science, there is one thing that is confusing me: "conclusion that isn't based on evidence." This would be the conclusion drawn by the Congress, no?

morris, you should know by know that my heart bleeds for strays.

croons: boooooorn freeeeeee

Binky,
The conclusion drawn by congress that adult-child sex is harmful to the child has much evidence to support it. It's true, there has not been a specific clinical study for adolescent males. But they have been included in broader studies. Your argument is like saying that just because a broad study including several populations but doesn't focus exclusively on native americans, there's no evidence that native americans would be included within the broad study's conlusions. Or like saying just because a relationship is found to be significant using one statistical method, that there's no evidence it would be true using another statistical method. Or like saying that just because gravity brings rocks back to earth, gravity may not necessarily effect feathers. The only clinical evidence in this case points to the conclusion that Congress reached, that adult-child sex is harmful to the child. It is not specific to the adolescent male population, but neither was Congress' critique.

Well, the reason I suggested Congress was that I figured you couldn't possibly be talking about the published article which used evidence from fifty-nine studies.

Binky,
Was that the article that said all the clinical studies showed the harmful effects of adult-child sex?

The article was the one you linked to, the only one I read, that I commented on and excerpted above.