(1) Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. and Bauserman, R., A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124/1, 1998, pp. 22-53.

(2) Rind, B. and Tromovitch, P., A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse, Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34/3, 1997, pp. 237-255.

(3) Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. and Bauserman, R., An Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples, Paper presented to the symposium sponsored by the Paulus Kerk, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, on the 18th of December 1998

(3) Ipce Newsletter, Number E 6, July 1999

(4) NARTH, Fact Sheet: The Problem of Pedophilia

(5) Family Research Council - APA/Pedophilia News Conference, Dr. Laura Speaks on Pedophilia and the APA at a News Conference, May 12, 1999 - Dr. Laura Schlessinger

(6) Statement to the APA by the researchers Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman on May 12 1999 (http://www.apbonline.com/safestreets/1999/06/04/authorstat.html)

(7) Legislature Of The State Of Alaska, House Joint Resolution No. 36

(8) 106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 107 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

(9) The remarks of three representatives on the House resolution decrying the conclusion of the RBT research (http://thomas.loc.gov/r106/r106h12jy9.html)

(1) American Psychological Association APA (http://www.apa.org)

(2) North American Man-Boy Love Association NAMBL (http://www.nambla.org)

(3) National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (http://www.narth.com)

(4) Homepage "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger (http://www.drlaura.com)

(5) Family Research Council FRC (http://www.frc.org)

(6) Christian Coalition (http://www.christian-coalition.org)

(7) Seite U.S. Repräsentantenhauses (http://www.house.gov)

(8) Seite des U.S. Senats (http://www.senate.gov)

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., and Bauserman, R., (1998), "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53.

Revised N@MbL@ summary, 1999.

In 1998, a meta-analysis of 59 different studies of adult-youth-child sexuality has appeared in the prestigious Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychiatric Association, APA. The meta-analysis shows that the current war on boylovers has not much of a basis in science.

The scientists find that:

- Basis beliefs in the general population about the sexual experiences of children and adolescents with adults (such as the belief that they typically cause intense harm) are not supported by the evidence.

- Most youthful sexual experiences with older partners do not involve force or threats.

- Family environment factors are 9 times as important as sexual experience for predicting bad outcomes. Studies from the "sex abuse industry" consistently fail to recognize bad family environments as the main source of abuse and harmful experiences.

- There is no association between boys' sexual experience and emotional problems unless the experience is unwanted. The correlation between girls' sexual experiences which can be classified as "abuse" and poor emotional "adjustment" is very small and cannot be assumed to be due to any cause-effect relationship.

- On average, nearly 70% of males in the studies reported that as children or adolescents their sexual experiences with adults had been positive or neutral.

In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose another way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.

Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has already set the stage for this same transition-in the case of pedophilia-by quietly redefining it. NARTH first made this story public in its membership publication (3). According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM-IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.

She is a very popular broadcast speaker with a program to which millions of people listen. She used many hours of her broadcast program, from March 22 and plenty of room on her web site and her newspaper column to attack the APA. The APA has connected itself with 'child molesters', is wanting to normalize pedophilia and to change the laws. "I, like you, right now probably cannot believe this," she told her nationwide audience, "I've read this so many times, I'm sick." And: "If pedophilia is not a mental disorder, what is it?" This was the style of her program. She wrote: "What really terrifies me is the idea that the Rind study will now be used to normalize pedophilia, to change the legal system and further destroy the family." Also the authors were attacked in a way that was soon described in the newspapers as "a crusade".

However, it is the APA, not me, who is mis-representing the study. The authors clearly state that "two thirds of sexually abused men and more than one fourth of sexually abused women reported neutral or positive reactions..." That sure sounds to me as though they found not only no harm, but benefits!

What really terrifies me is the idea that the Rind study will now be used to normalize pedophilia, to change the legal system, and further destroy the family. I don't believe my fear is irrational because it is the position of the APA that scientific data should be used to influence public policy. "We ought to let the literature, the research, inform public policy so we can have good public policy," said an APA spokesperson in a Conservative News Service Wire Report.

FRC Chief Spokesperson Janet Parshall said, "Children cannot consent to sex and any study that does not accept this premise should be dismissed." "Pedophilia has no presentable face". "We should treat it as the ugly demon it is and do everything we can to preserve our children's innocence. Adult-child sex is always reprehensible, always harmful and always forced."

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36
IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
TWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE - FIRST SESSION

By Representative Dyson

A RESOLUTION

Relating to rejecting the conclusions in a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children; and urging the President of the United States and the United States Congress to similarly reject these conclusions.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

WHEREAS children are a precious gift and responsibility; and

WHEREAS the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is our sacred duty; and

WHEREAS no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival and society than our children; and

WHEREAS it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families, and children; and

WHEREAS information endangering to children is being made public and. in some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility through release under professional titles or through professional organizations; and

WHEREAS elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society; and

WHEREAS Alaska has made sexual molestation of a child a felony and has declared parents who sexually molest their children to be unfit, and

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association has recently published a study that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for "willing" children;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature condemns and denounces all suggestions in the recently published study by the American Psychological Association that indicates sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for "willing" children; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature urges the United States Congress and the President of the United States to likewise reject and condemn, in the strongest honorable written and vocal terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature 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.

COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable Al Gore, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate, the Honorable Trent Lott, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young. U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse

Using College Samples

Authors' Statement

May 12, 1999

In view of the press conference to be held on Wednesday, May 12, sponsored by the Family Research Council, we would like to provide you [the APA] the following information.

False claim that the study condones abuse

First, critics have attacked the study for its conclusions that child sexual abuse (CSA) in college student populations is less harmful than has been widely believed. These critics have implied that these conclusions condone sexual abuse. In fact, in our article, we clearly state that our review of the research literature does not condone CSA, and changes nothing with regard to moral or legal views of abuse. We wrote that "lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness," that moral and legal codes of society need not be (and often are not) based on findings of psychological harmfulness, and that "the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behavior, currently classified as CSA, should be abandoned or even altered" (p. 47).

Criticism of terminology

A central focus of some criticisms of this article has been the suggestion that terms such as "adult-adolescent" or "adult-child sex" should be used in some cases, instead of "child sexual abuse." This suggestion was directed to scientific research definitions only, not social or legal ones. The research

concern is that although all such sexual contacts may meet legal and social definitions of abuse, the data suggested that such broad definitions may fail to account for how the content of the experience affects psychological outcomes, and that failures to draw distinctions among categories of CSA may compromise the ability to predict effects of these experiences. In other words, all abuse is not equally harmful and suggesting that it is trivializes the most serious abuse.

We state in the paper that defining CSA based on moral and legal criteria is appropriate for legal restrictions, but may be invalid in scientific inquiry. The term "adult-child sex" already occurs frequently in the child abuse literature, used interchangeably with "child sex abuse." Our paper suggests only that these terms be used more selectively in psychological research - not in media discussions or in legislative discussions.

Issue of "consent"

The Family Research Council media advisory states that the "study is based on the premise that a child can actually consent to sex with an adult." This is a gross misinterpretation. Our study was based on the premise that there was a need to review research on the effects of, and reactions to, CSA experiences in college populations. 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. In the research we reviewed on the effects of CSA, "consent" has meant the victim's own perception of his or her level of participation - from being forced to willingness - because this is known to affect a victim's reaction to the experience. Given that our study is a review of dozens of other studies, many of which explicitly examined how victim's own perceptions of their level of participation affect outcomes, it was appropriate for us to examine this factor as well. How these perceptions relate to psychological outcomes is a valid and important research question. In short, in our paper and in the dozens of studies we reviewed which examined victims: "consent" simply means perceptions of willingness and is not claimed to imply anything about informed consent.

The value of our research review lies in its thorough and careful integration of research on the effects of childhood sexual abuse experiences in nonclinical populations, and its examination of how the context of the experience and background variables - such as physical abuse and emotional neglect - may contribute to the reactions and effects reported among students. The methods of the review, including the meta-analytic approach, are sound and appropriate. If there is disagreement with the findings and conclusions, the appropriate response is to conduct a review of the research with college samples that demonstrates where errors were made, or better yet, to conduct research with populations of college students that can either confirm or refute the conclusions.

Although we feel that the above comments address the attacks made by some critics, we would like to comment further on some of these issues. In response to the suggestion that reporting that CSA may be less damaging than previously thought condones abuse, consider what psychologist John Currie wrote in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (April 8): "To excoriate the APA for publishing the study is a bit like scolding the American Cancer Society for reporting that the long-term effects of a form of cancer are less catastrophic than had previously been thought." This analogy is not just hypothetical. In a study published earlier this year in the journal

Pediatrics by R. Noll and colleagues (reported in The New York Times, Jan. 19, 1999, (D 12 by Jane Brody), a comparison between nearly all children with cancer in the Cincinnati area and normal controls found that the cancer patients were as well adjusted socially, emotionally, and psychologically as the controls. The authors commented that their study was an improvement over previous research because it examined children in an everyday setting rather than a clinical one. A response to this study analogous to the criticism of our own would be to claim that the authors and the AMA are promoting cancer because it's less harmful psychologically than previously thought.

In fact, if adverse childhood events are found to be less psychologically harmful than previously thought, or in some cases not measurably harmful at all, researchers have an ethical duty to report this. In the case of CSA, this finding has some positive implications: victims do not have to believe that they are "damaged goods" and will inevitably suffer personality disorders and other psychopathology, and clinicians may have solid grounds for providing reassurance and hope to those who have had such experiences. Ignoring such data may bring harm to those who have had such experiences by perpetuating feelings of being "damaged."

Bruce Rind, Temple University,

Philip Tromovitch, University of Pennsylvania,

Robert Bauserman.

"Many critics have demanded that APA repudiate the study. Because the article has attracted so much attention. We have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound."

"These conclusions have been distorted and misreported by various groups and media figures who are now claiming that APA is saying that child sexual abuse is not harmful to children, or that young children are capable of "consenting" to sex with adults. Of course, APA's position is just the opposite; child sexual abuse is harmful to children. Pedophilia is WRONG, should never be considered acceptable behavior, and is properly punishable by law."

That change is the most important outcome of debate on the study, said Heather Mirjahangir, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), chief sponsor of the resolution. "They said, from now on they're going to consider public-policy repercussions," she said. "You don't hear academic journals saying things like that."

The APA's chief executive officer, Raymond D. Fowler, wrote in a letter to another sponsor that his organization rejects the position "that much of what we call child sexual abuse is not particularly harmful."

"While there is doubtless a continuum of harmfulness depending upon the nature, intensity and duration of the abuse, there is no way to be certain that even the mildest forms of noncontact sexual encounter might not do serious damage to a vulnerable child," he wrote.

106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 107 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published in the Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association, that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children.

Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival than our children;

Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God;

Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children are parents' sacred duty;

Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render necessary assistance;

Whereas the Supreme Court has held that parents `who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));

Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to support, but also to defend, the health and rights of parents, families, and children;

Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility through release under professional titles or through professional organizations;

Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;

Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of children a felony;

Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse as criminal and harmful to children;

Whereas, once published and allowed to stand, scientific literature may become a source for additional research;

Whereas the Psychological Bulletin has recently published a severely flawed study, entitled `A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples', which suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for `willing' children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);

Whereas, in order to clarify any inconsistencies between the two conclusions the authors of the study suggest and the position of the American Psychological Association that sexual relations between children and adults are abusive, exploitive, and reprehensible, and should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable, the American Psychological Association has issued a public `Resolution Opposing Child Sexual Abuse' ;

Whereas the American Psychological Association should be congratulated for publicly clarifying its opposition to any adult-child sexual relations, which will help to deny pedophiles from citing `A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' in a legal defense, and for resolving to evaluate the scientific articles it publishes in light of their potential social, legal, and political implications;

Whereas the Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually exploited children are unable to develop healthy affectionate relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunctions, and have a tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, n.9 (1982));

Whereas Paidika--The Journal of Pedophilia, a publication advocating the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D. (see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective,' vol. 2, No. 1, Summer 1989); and

Whereas pedophiles and organizations, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that advocate laws to permit sex between adults and children are exploiting the study to promote and justify child sexual abuse:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article `A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for `willing'

children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);

(2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;

(3) urges the President likewise to reject and condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law; and

(4) 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.

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1999

Remarks of Mr. SALMON, Representative from Arizona

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are no lower life forms than adults who sexually abuse children. Child molesters rob children of their innocense [sic] and subject them to a lifetime of nightmares. Those who engage in this activity deserve the harshest punishment.

Those who excuse this evil conduct, particularly those in positions of influence, are also pretty low on the food chain and deserve the harshest possible condemnation.

While I am delighted that the Congress is considering this resolution denouncing attempts to normalize child sexual abuse, our work is not done with the passage of this resolution. Words alone will not protect children from the monsters who prey on them.

Typically, sexual predators who victimize children receive light prison sentences in this country. On average, a convicted child molester, that is, not one who plea bargains down to a lesser offense, serves less than 4 years behind bars, and recidivism rates are quoted as high as 70 percent. Those are just the ones who get caught. In other words, they get out of prison and they prey on children again and again. The next time, the pedophiles may end up killing the child to make sure there is not evidence so they can be put away again.

In my opinion, the average sentence is about 96 years too short. The Congress took an important step in addressing this problem recently when both the House and Senate voted with huge bipartisan majorities for Aimee's Law, otherwise known as the No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act.

It was irresponsible for a respected academic journal to publish a study which implies that adult-child sex could be a positive experience. But I applaud the APA for responding to the recent public uproar over the study by clarifying its opposition to any adult-child sexual relations, and for promising to consider their social responsibility when making publishing decisions in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I join those who have and will rise to condemn child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse not only has devastating consequences for its victims, but also for all of society. It is important to remember that no amount of legal or professional legerdemain can detract from the inherent evil caused by child sexual abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the American Psychological Association for clarifying its position on pedophilia. Without question, sexual abuse of minors is child abuse. Child abuse is a plague on this country that cannot be overlooked or obscured by pseudo-scientific doubletalk.

In these times--with so much talk about victimization and harassment--it amazes me that there is any confusion regarding the patently perverse nature of sexual abuse of children. There simply can be no equivocation about the obvious emotional devastation that is caused when adults have sexual relations with children. Sexual activity between an adult and a child is always abusive and always criminal in all cases--period.

Well, our children are our future and both should be safeguarded. The days ahead will be dark indeed if our society turns a blind eye to abuse of innocent ones. There can be no compromises in the war against child abuse. We must all be eternally vigilant in this most important cause.

Such a study by such a prestigious institution gives credibility and potential legal defenses to pedophiliac [sic] sickos.