yguy

From the Martin Seligman thread:

You guys owe it to yourselves to repudiate this insanity with everything you have. I realize some of you have problems with the subject due to personal experience with it, but those who are able need to make your objections known in no uncertain terms, lest those like myself be given any more reason than we already have to draw any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Personally I find the thesis too idiotic to even debate; but evidently some here don't have that limitation, so I look forward to seeing you guys cut it to ribbons.

Here's something to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).

Dallam SJ, Gleaves DH, Cepeda-Benito A, Silberg JL, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D.

Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, USA. sjd.scout@worldnet.att.net

B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) examined the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) by meta-analyzing studies of college students. The authors reported that effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense" and that "men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22) and recommended value-neutral reconceptualization of the CSA construct. The current analysis revealed numerous problems in that study that minimized CSA-adjustment relations, including use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.'s study's main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings.

Viti

I don't see where a connection is made between pedophilia and homosexuality. In fact, statistics show most pedophiles are heterosexual. What's your point with this yguy?

Philosoft

And, for what it's worth, Fr. Andrew has been through the proverbial wringer over this particular issue more than once on these very boards. I don't think many of the previous participants are eager to revisit potential train wrecks.

yguy

Obviously he hasn't been quite wrung out yet.

I can understand that, but if a statement like that is allowed to stand unchallenged, what is someone with my POV to think? That homosexual rights advocates agree with him?

If veteran users don't want to rehash it, new members show up here every day who likely are supporters of "gay" rights. Let them speak up.

yguy

I did my absolute best to make my point as precisely as I know how. If that isn't good enough, I guess you're out of luck.

Lobstrosity

This is a rather stupid thread. Why not just name it "Attention people from Canada" and point out that the lack of Canadian sentiment against Fr.Andrew demonstrates an appaling link between Canadians and pedophiles? What the hell do gay rights have to do with pedophilia?

That said, do not let my repudiation of your pointless union of two independent subjects be mistaken as support for Fr.Andrew's assertions, which are, in my opinion, so obviously far off the mark as to not even merit discussion. Perhaps this is the main reason why no one bothers to contradict him. Maybe everyone just ignores him.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew-previously): The notion that sexual contact between adults and children is always abusive is incorrect, and studies show that a great many adults who have had childhood inter-generational sexual experiences see them in a positive light.

(Fr Andrew currently): Here's the Rind study which shows that CSA is not always harmful and that some victims view it as a positive event.
What I said.
All I said.
Quote:
(on children under 16 years)--"The following distributions were found regarding self-perceived effects (see bottom of Table 2): for the males with CSA, 4% said their experience caused permanent damage; 33% said it was harmful at the time, but with no lasting effects; 57% said it had no effect; and 6% said it improved the quality of their life. The distribution for the females with CSA was: 13% reported permanent damage; 51% said it was harmful at the time, but with no lasting effects; 34% said it had no effect; and 2% said it improved the quality of their life."
And here's a paper defending the above study against the APA's head in the sand attitude.
Nothing in either paper about homosexuality, yguy. Sorry.
This will be my last word on pedophilia (beyond correcting misinformation when I'm able) unless someone wants to discuss it and demonstrates their ability to do so rationally.
This automatically eliminates yguy.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): His point is to demonize homosexuals as child abusers, obviously.

HelenM

So are you saying: if homosexual rights advocates do not post that they disagree with Father Andrew's quote, above, you will deduce from that that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected?

Anyway, I think most people who post on IIDB favor equal rights for homosexuals and most people who've bothered to post responses to Fr Andrew in the past have attempted to repudiate what he wrote above. If you do a search on his posts I expect you'll find that to be the case. So, the strong disagreement by 'homosexual rights advocates' (unless by that you mean specifically people who are particularly activist regarding homsexual rights) is already on this board and you'll find it if you search previous threads. Maybe someone else will and will post the links. Maybe I will at some point, if no-one else does.

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I don't understand that. What I've done is paraphrase the findings of some studies...in order to counter misinformation about CSA. That doesn't mean that I support or encourage CSA.
You may have reasons to reject the studies, but why attack the messenger for posting them in the interests of setting the record straight?
I think we should examine all pertinent information--even if it doesn't necessarily jive with our preconceptions.