May 15, 2024
01) LINK
Thanks to furcifera!
“Come join our MAP activist team at PCMA.” https://fstube.net/w/7FcoHYC5aHaqZh42NWN19g
Main link:
https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Help:Joining_PCMA_chat
COMMENT from SUBMITTER:
Interesting…”
https://ourlovefrontier.wordpress.com/2024/05/15/eivind-berge-i-am-now-an-official-map/
===
May 15, 2024
01) LINK
Thanks to furcifera!
“I am proud to announce that I now have an official position in the MAP movement. Today Newgon has made me Men’s Movement Community Outreach Ambassador. Quoting my own statement in their press release:
‘As a veteran Men’s Rights Activist, and seeing how the Men’s Rights Movement has lost sight of our original sex-positivity, I am excited to have found Newgon which picks up the torch on advocating for sex law reforms that I considered obvious from the beginning. Increasingly draconian age of consent and related sex laws are feminism’s most insidious weapons against men. We sorely need an organizational structure wherein we can make our stance clear and have a political platform we can push, along with educational resources promoting the truth versus sex abuse hysteria. Newgon provides all of this. I am therefore delighted to be appointed by Newgon in an official role and look forward to working with them to make common cause with the Men’s Movement as I envision it. As far as I’m concerned, MAP is now a political synonym for MRA and I am proud to be known by either. We can thank Newgon’s ethos for establishing this idea as a cultural force, a MAP Movement which obviously deserves to include all sex-positive MRAs as well.'”
===
|
||
| …. |
May 08, 2024
Thanks to furcifera!
“Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic Citation: Wilson Sy (2024) Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Medical & Clinical Research, 9(2), 01-21. Macro-data during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK) are shown to have significant data anomalies and inconsistencies with existing explanations. England 2020 UK spike in deaths, wrongly attributed to COVID-19 in April 2020, was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was largely absent, but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections, which were statistically very highly correlated (coefficient over 90 percent) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020. Importantly Excess deaths remained elevated following mass vaccination in 2021, but were statistically uncorrelated to COVID injections, while remaining significantly correlated to Midazolam injections. The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in UK suggests a possible policy of systemic euthanasia. Unlike Australia, where assessing the statistical impact of COVID injections on excess deaths is relatively straightforward, UK excess deaths were closely associated with the use of Midazolam and other medical intervention. The UK iatrogenic pandemic Caused by euthanasia deaths from Midazolam and also, likely caused by COVID injections, https://www.researchgate.net/directory/publications but their relative impacts are difficult to measure from the data, due to causal proximity of euthanasia. Global investigations of COVID-19 epidemiology, based only on the relative impacts of COVID disease and vaccination, may be inaccurate, due to the neglect of significant confounding factors in some countries.”
=== |
…. |
 |
||
|
|
||
| …. |
May 08, 2024
Thanks to furcifera!
“Dr John Campbell discusses the following paper: “Macro data during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK are shown to have significant data anomalies and inconsistencies with existing explanations. UK spike in deaths wrongly attributed to Covid-19 in April 2020, was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was largely absent, but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections, which were very highly correlated (coefficient of over 90%) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020. Importantly, excess deaths remained elevated following mass vaccination in 2021, but were statistically uncorrelated to Covid injections, while remaining significantly correlated to Midazolam injections. The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in the UK, suggests a possible policy of systematic euthenasia.” It’s unclear if John took the video down himself…or if YouStooged creeps struck again.
=== |
…. |
|
|
||
|
||
| …. |
May 01, 2024 Thanks to feinmann!
Please forgive any mispronunciations.
Excerpts from Paidika: Dr. John P. DeCecco interview (Part 1) Dr. John P. DeCecco is a Professor of Psychology and Human Sexuality at San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, and Director of Human Sexuality Studies for the University. He is also Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality (CERES), and Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality. The interview took place in December 1987 in Amsterdam, where Dr. DeCecco is currently a visiting professor. Sexual Identity Paidika (Pdk): Let us begin with some issues raised in your article in the book The Origin of Sexuality and Homosexuality. In it you question the validity of “sexual identity” as a scientific concept and suggest the substitution of “sexual relationships”. Could you begin by briefly summarizing the background of this critique to our readers? John DeCecco (JDC): It came out of a historical survey of the development of the idea of homosexual identity, the different formulations it took, in anthropology, sociology, and within psychiatry, especially in the psychoanalytic movement in America. That survey was designed to document Michel Foucault’s notion that the gay identity was really a reverse discourse of the notion of homosexuality as a pathology, that it was an effort to show that homosexuals, later called “lesbians” and gay men”, could fulfil the same roles in society that heterosexuals did, that they could have long lasting relationships, that their sexuality didn’t deflect them from the more serious pursuits such as work and community devotion and so on. We showed that the “gay identity” emerged as a way of “detoxifying” the pathological model of homosexuality that had arisen in the 19th century, and was propagated throughout much of the twentieth century by European and American psychiatry. As such it was a categorization of individuals rather than any general acceptance of homosexuality. (Pdk) You saw several advantages arising from a shift to the study of sexual relationships, one of those being that it would make research more value-free. (JDC) I think the idea of the gay identity limits the study of homosexuality. Until fairly recently, many of the articles that were submitted for publication in the Journal of Homosexuality fitted this model of detoxification, such as ‘Lesbian mothers should be entrusted with their children because the children will grow up in the appropriate gender roles, to be heterosexual’. Much research that came to me – it’s now beginning to change – was an effort to prove that homosexuals were “normal”, but by criteria applied to heterosexual society and there was nothing unique to homosexuality itself. I’d be interested to see an article in which we’d find out how lesbian mothers and gay fathers allow children a kind of freedom that is not present in traditional families, allow the children to develop bisexuality and androgyny and so on. That’s one big limitation of the “gay identity” – there are others besides. (Pdk) You speak about that as a limitation, and yet at a certain point in history, that was perhaps absolutely necessary as a political strategy. (JDC) Yes, that detoxification literature is obviously a political ploy. It is not descriptive of the wide range of homosexual desires and acts – it shuns being “gay”. So much of what Foucault calls the reverse discourse has been a political discourse. Simply, it says that all these terrible things that are claimed about homosexuals are not true, that indeed homosexuals can be very much like heterosexuals except for the fact that they are homosexuals. If inquiry into homosexuality is to be open, we must resist ideology, we must resist the normalization as well as the pathologization. Academicians should not make their first priority political whitewash; it should be the illumination of the phenomena that they turn their attention to. It would be much better, and maybe ultimately better serve political purposes, if we tried to render reliable accounts of what is going on in people’s sexual lives, without yielding to the pressure of saying: ‘What is it that we should be telling the public that will make them more sympathetic?’ I think that is where truth and politics part company. Pdk: If you abandon the language of identity, which has been so prevalent in discussions of homosexuality, and to some degree in paedophilia, what are you replacing it with, what kind of language? JDC: To me, it is the individual and his or her desires and actions that are primary. There are such things as individual character and individual personality. They are disordered and opaque, but they are what distinguishes a single person from anybody else. The study of sexuality ought to be pursued within the context of a person’s life, and that life in its social context. The sexual identity categories are very crude, and tend to veer more and more away from sexual feelings and acts, and become entities in themselves. If ultimately what we want in society is to arrive at some consensus of what sexuality is, and the ethical constraints within which it should be expressed, subsuming people under these categories works against that objective. So what do you replace sexual identity with? You don’t have to replace it with anything. You replace it with people’s lives, and the part that sexuality plays in those lives. Pdk: What are the implications of this shift for the study of paedophilia? JDC: One of the things that attracts me to the study of paedophilia is that it allows the possibility of an inquiry into childhood sexuality, free from non-native models that have occupied our attention in the past, particularly the psychoanalytic model of stages of heterosexual development. I see it as a chance to determine how children in their own ways, yet to be described, and in varied fashions, yet to be discovered, can be and are sexual … and how adults, as the mentors and teachers of children, unavoidably, will have some kind of role in that development, apart from just standing outside and observing it, which would be very unusual for anyone who really cared for a child. I don’t think we know much about the sexual development of children, apart from heterosexual models which say that a child at eight should be repressing sexuality and at puberty it suddenly floods forward, and ultimately leads to fatherhood and motherhood. Pdk: For the study of homosexuality to reach the point where it was able to free itself from the limitations of sexual identity concepts, there had to be a political progress. Isn’t there value in a similar period of political organization for a paedophile identity? Given the current extraordinary oppression directed against paedophilia, is it possible to conduct a value-free scientific discourse on the subject? JDC: No, but at least you can show how heterosexual values dominate. Before the gay liberation movement, it would have been impossible to do that, and it still is not easy to do today, but I think and am hoping, that we now have a choice that we did not have one hundred years ago when Ulrichs formulated his theories of the Urnings (a word Ulrich coined at the time to describe men who were attracted to other men). I think we now see that the identity route is another trap. You know, for a long time it left out paedophilia, homosexual paedophilia, and has never countenanced heterosexual paedophilia, which one would assume is even more prevalent, and has never acknowledged lesbian paedophilia. So I would say there wasn’t a choice before the creation of the “gay identity”. Maybe the inquiry should be framed differently, in other words it’s not going to be an inquiry into paedophilia per se, but an inquiry into childhood sexuality and the roles that adults play in that, including the sexual role. We’ve maintained the preposterous stance in Western society that the adult has no part in that, or that the part is simply that of an observer, and yet in almost every other aspect of children’s lives, the adults are participants as well as observers. We’ve put a fence around the sexual area, and said ‘This you must stand outside of’. So my feeling is, the better route to go is to say that paedophilia is part of the broad inquiry into sexuality, the meaning and the experience of sexuality in an individual’s life, including children, and not frame it too narrowly as paedophilia. If you narrow the inquiry to “paedophiles”, to the adults, you’re going to deflect it away from the children, and you’re going to deflect it away from the broader examination of the sources of heterosexual oppression and prejudice.
=== |
…. |
| Sub-Blog Archive – EQF Library Archive |
||
April 23, 2024
01) LINK
Thanks to furcifera!
“A “children’s rights” petition drafted by a notorious pro-pedophile activist organization has been quietly accepted by Germany’s Parliament after years of review. The resolution, drafted by Krumme-13 founder Dieter Gieseking, was first presented to the Bundestag in 2019 and seeks to expand children’s legal autonomy. The proposals contained within the accepted petition asserted that children should “have the right to have a say in all matters that affect their emotional, mental and physical well-being” and “the right to the free development of their personality.”
Reminds me of the fact that the ILGA accepted it’s stance on child rights, written and submitted by NAMBLA.
Good for the German government!
These sound like good and correct amendments to me.
===
|
|
||
| …. |
March 09, 2024 Thanks to feinmann!
Please forgive any mispronunciations.
Excerpts from Paidika: Book Review by Benjamin Rossen Boys on their Contacts with Men: A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships (Part 3) By Theo Sandfort. (New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987). 175 pages. Just as surprising is a review similarly flawed in fact and innuendo by Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny. They write, ”To begin with, his sample was completely unrepresentative, since his ‘recruiters’ apparently deliberately sought out ‘better’ paedophile relationships. What does ‘better’ mean? Possibly these were relationships in which the boys were so intimidated by the paedophile that they were afraid to say anything against him. The selection was not deliberately biased in the way suggested by these authors. Theo Sandfort approached the NVSH, which sponsors paedophile work groups in all major cities in the Netherlands, to solicit volunteers. Other men were contacted by word of mouth. The boys were then contacted through the men. Therefore, the sample was self-selected. The characteristics of the sample and the limitations imposed on the generality of the findings are dealt with by Sandfort. The unrepresentative nature of the sample, in view of Sandfort’s principal research question, is not “a major methodological flaw” as suggested by the authors. The question, “Can a sexual contact with an adult be a positive experience for a child?”, may be answered by interviewing a select population. Sandfort has been much more cautious than many others, whose unrepresentative samples have been drawn from rape crisis centers, psychiatric clinics and court rooms. The sarcastic pretense by Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, not to understand the meaning of “better relationships” is astonishing, particularly as Sandfort discusses the notion. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the boys were intimidated as suggested by Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny. The complete transcripts of interviews with three of the boys, where this fact can be seen clearly, are included in the appendices of Sandfort’s most recent book. The strange comments by these authors seem to reflect a deliberate effort to misrepresent the research. Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny continue, “… each boy was interviewed in the home of ‘his’ paedophile with the paedophile present, without any apparent regard for the fact that the adult’s presence would have almost assuredly prevented the boy from voicing complaints about the way he was treated, because of fear of punishment.” Sandfort gave thought to selection of a suitable venue for the interviews. Some of the interviews were held in the boys’ homes, although Sandfort felt that the parents’ homes, and his office at the university, had drawbacks which could have restricted the spontaneity of the boys’ responses. The paedophiles’ homes were the points of initial contact and the most convenient and uncontrived choice. It is also untrue that the interviews were conducted in the presence of the paedophile. The boys were promised that the interviews would be treated as confidential. It is a fact that the boys did criticize their adult partners and these criticisms are reported by Sandfort. Why should Masters, Johnson and Kolodny invent such a falsehood? The authors continue, “Finally, no follow-up of these boys and their relationships was attempted to discover what the long-range impacts might be.” Theo Sandfort, who is hoping to do a long-term follow-up, lives in the present like the rest of us. The passage of time takes time. If, however, circumstances intervene, and a follow-up becomes impossible, that fact cannot be used as a criticism of the present research. Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny cite Dr. Suzanne Sgroi, with whom they agree. “The sexually abused child may not feel abused initially, but as the child learns what society thinks of what he has done, the child feels betrayed …” This looks like an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The logic of Sgroi’ s statement precludes the possibility of benign sexual experiences between children and adults. Scientific questions must be phrased so that the results of investigations are not pre-supposed. From an epistemological perspective, a priori insistence on the victim status of the child is, simply, bad science. In this case, there is danger that the assertion will become self-fulfilling. In other words, if the child is not traumatized by the sexual activity, then we can traumatize him by the way we (and others) respond. People in positions of influence, like Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, can ensure that society as a whole will respond this way, by insisting that the children are always victims. This dynamic occurs in some incest counselling centers where a feminist ideological perspective dominates. In this view all children are regarded as ‘victims’. To become ‘survivors’ they must acknowledge their status as ‘victims’. The process of counselling ensures that the trauma is magnified for some children, and other children become ‘victims’. In one case, a tough little girl who knew her mind better than most, kept insisting, “But I Iiked it.” “Oh dear!” said the counsellor with a look of pious despair, “You poor girl! You’ll never be saved.” While there are more points in both reviews which could be responded to, it may be more profitable to turn attention to some of the differences between the Netherlands and the U.S.A. which have made this research possible here. Like most of Europe, there exists in the Netherlands a much healthier and relaxed attitude towards sexuality in all its manifestations, including paedophilia. In part, mature understanding has come about through the efforts of people like Dr. Edward Brongersma, who, despite a conviction for a relationship with a teenage boy, continued a prominent career as a lawyer and a member of the Dutch Senate. He lobbied effectively for reform of the age of consent laws. In 1975 he was knighted by the Queen for his services to the nation. Dr. Brongersma is not a lone voice in this country. The opinions of many people with tolerant perspectives, including psychologists, social workers, legislators and others are covered by Sandfort. Mrazek accuses Sandfort of criminal complicity and “rationalizing criminal activity”. He points out that such research could not be carried out in the United States and that “in the Netherlands, homosexual contact between men and boys is illegal.” However, the law in this country is tempered with an ample measure of good sense. Even the police have “testified that the law no longer conformed to reality. “ln the event that the police are informed of a paedophile relationship their first instruction is to ascertain the wishes of the boy. This is usually done by a social worker. If the boy does not want to make a complaint, the probability of further police action or prosecution is slight. Parents who press for charges, are advised that damage is likely to result from over-reaction. As a result, the growing North American phenomenon of child abuse by heavy handed intervention is unlikely to occur in this country. Far from being a criminal for failing to report the paedophile contacts, Sandfort behaved in a responsible manner, and, in this country, is seen to have done so. There is a remarkable contrast between the attitude of police and welfare authorities in the U.S.A. and the Netherlands. Children have been threatened with death, jail and rape, and sometimes assaulted by police in the U.S.A., in an effort to extract ‘confessions’. It seems that coercion is justified in that country if it will lead to the prosecution of another paedophile. Presumably this activity is undertaken in the interests of protecting children. One of the functions of the intellectual community in any country is to set standards of reasonableness and restraint. When people like Mrazek, Masters, Johnson and Kolodny fail in this role, it is not surprising to find police charging about like enraged bull elephants indiscriminately trampling underfoot the guilty and innocent alike. Does moral responsibility for the damage being done, rest in part, on these authors? I think the current child-sex-pornography-incest-paedophile witch hunt will, in another generation, be seen as analogous to the Red Scare phenomenon, an outburst of exaggerated moral indignation which ultimately became responsible for far more damage that it prevented. It is a pity that a rational assessment of Sandfort’s research in that country is so hard to find. The intellectual dishonesty and naked prejudice with which these authors have attacked Sandfort’s work, would seem to disqualify them from the right to participate further in rational debate. The current American national hysteria includes outrageous rumor-mongering by the media. Amsterdammers were most amazed to read reports in American newspapers of auctions of children into sexual slavery which were alleged to occur in the Dam Square. Of course, no such events ever took place. Nor is Holland the world supplier of child pornography. It is, however, a country where many intelligent people refuse to see things in simple-minded categories, where tolerance is a national characteristic, and extremism in any form is frowned upon. The Dutch also believe that children are protected by being informed as fully as possible. Comprehensive national sex education is available, starting in early primary school. In one instance, a balanced review of Sandfort’s book, including excerpts from interviews with some of the boys, was published on the children’s page of a prominent Dutch newspaper. No equivalent book is available in English. This translation is a unique and important publication. Against the background of the child-sex-abuse witch hunt which has reached apoplectic proportions throughout most of the English-speaking world, it provides some welcome balance. In my opinion, no contemporary book on this subject deserves a stronger endorsement. John Money writes in his introduction, “It is a very important book and a very positive one. It provides sexological science and policy with information of great pertinence in helping to shape the future wisely … It is must-reading for all those interested in the development of sexuality in childhood.” Editor’s Note: Benjamin Rossen holds a B.A. in Psychology, a B.Sc. in Human Biology, and a Dip.Ed. from the University of Western Australia, and completed his Masters Qualifying Examination in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Monash University, Victoria, Australia. He is engaged in research on human sexual development for his Ph.D. This review is copyrighted by Benjamin Rossen, 1987.
Previous Parts: Excerpts from Paidika: Benjamin Rossen reviews Theo Sandfort (Part 1)… Excerpts from Paidika: Benjamin Rossen reviews Theo Sandfort (Part 2)…
=== |
…. |
| Sub-Blog Archive – EQF Library Archive |
||
February 21, 2024
01) LINK
Thanks to furcifera!
“Around the country, teachers and administrators will have great difficulty understanding their duties under Title IX to ensure that such students have access to school facilities on equal terms as males and females who accept their innate sex — that includes sports teams, bathrooms, neo-pronouns like ze and zir, and more. In an extreme situation, a pedophile could assert his sexual orientation is that of a ‘minor-attracted person’, and that a school may therefore not discriminate against him on the basis of that sexual orientation.”
COMMENT from SUBMITTER:
The US recognising minor attraction as a distinct sexual orientation, and making it illegal to discriminate against those that claim to be sexually attracted to children – whatever next?”
Oh dear!…Whatever shall they do?!!
Honestly…if they had any moral consistency…they would not discriminate against MAPs, period.
This is the Federalist crying?…yeah…
How appropriate the chosen graphic…for such a load of…
…At least he got that right.
===
|
|
||
| …. |
February 20, 2024
Thanks to furcifera!
“White clots common … John Campbell interviews Major Tom Haviland” I actually just found and watched this last night, myself…It’s disturbing.
=== |
…. |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| …. |
February 05, 2024 Thanks to feinmann!
Please forgive any mispronunciations.
Excerpts from Paidika: Book Review by Benjamin Rossen Boys on their Contacts with Men: A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships (Part 2) By Theo Sandfort. (New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987). 175 pages. In the last chapter, Sandfort outlines the evolution of attitudes and the law in the Netherlands. He discusses the liberalizing trend of the ’60’s and ’70’s, during which time there was an increasing tendency to remove moral judgments from the law. Readers interested in the current political debate in the Netherlands will find this an informative chapter. The opinions of many prominent individuals and groups who have lobbied for reform over the last two decades are outlined. The political process and the behavior of the media emerge, in contrast to the considered arguments and scientific evidence contained in Sandfort’s book, as often irrational, opportunistic, and out of step with social and sexual reality. It is a sad reflection to note that the Netherlands is nevertheless, the most advanced country in the world in these matters. Finally, Sandfort concludes that, apart from the violation of moral standards, there appears to be little ground for criminalizing the kinds of relationships found in his sample. The Dutch edition of this book, published a few months ago, received favorable reviews by the popular and professional press in this country. Radio, television, and press interviews with Sandfort drew attention to his work. Sandfort’s previous hook had also been well received in the Netherlands. This was not the case in the English-speaking world, where it was largely ignored or scorned. The only American reviews I know of are vitriolic in their denunciation. One of these, written by David Mrazek, appeared in Contemporary Psychology. Mrazek concludes, “To summarize, I am inclined to describe this book as a major effort by an organized paedophile group to justify its deviant sexual orientation. In my opinion, the scientific integrity of the work is in question …”. Mrazek’ s criticism is, arguably, the most serious accusation one scientist can level against another. The substance of Mrazek ‘s criticisms warrant closer scrutiny. To begin with, Mrazek claims that Sandfort ‘s research was “designed to define the effects of adult homosexual contact on young boys”, then proceeds to criticize the work because “the design of the research is insufficiently rigorous” to answer this question. However, Sandfort did not set out to answer that question. The research was designed to find out what an unrepresentative sample of boys each had to say about his ongoing relationship, and sexual activity with an adult. Mrazek gains nothing and loses credibility by attacking straw dogs. Mrazek criticizes Sandfort’s execution of the research. “… the explicit demand characteristics of the interviews, and the bias of the interviewer are insufficiently addressed”, he writes. It is not clear what Mrazek means by ”explicit demand characteristics”. The self-confrontation method was chosen because it promotes spontaneity, and the scoring method is objective and repeatable. The interviewer had an opportunity to put leading questions during the semi-structured interviews. However, perusal of the transcripts reveals a balanced professional approach by Sandfort. Mrazek attacks Sandfort for his use of language. He writes, “The usual labels of victims and perpetrators are militantly avoided … The reader who believes that young children should be protected from the sexual advances of adults, will find the language with which the researcher describes these relationships, offensive. In these interviews the perpetrator and victim are always referred to as partners and homosexual acts … as making love.” Sandfort ‘s choice of language was determined, in part, by the words of the children. “Where the boys referred to sexual activity with their adult partner as … ‘making love’” he reported it as such. The boys frequently used this phrase as a euphemism for having sex, a euphemism that works the same way in English and Dutch. Secondly, it seems clear that referring to a couple engaged in mutually consenting activity as ‘partners’ makes fewer assumptions than Mrazek’s use of ‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’. Indeed, Sandfort should be commended for avoiding linguistic bias. Mrazek’s own use of language appears to be biased. For example, ‘sexual advances’ makes assumptions which, in the light of Sandfort’s research, do not seem to be justified. It appears that Mrazek overlooked the finding that the boys in this sample acknowledged their role in initiating sexual activity. Furthermore, it is not clear what Mrazek means by “militantly avoided”. How does one militantly avoid using a word? Perhaps this is gratuitous linguistic bias from Mrazek. The personal innuendo directed by Mrazek against Sandfort is offensive. Scientific arguments should be judged on the merits of their logical and factual integrity. Argument by authority, whether for or against, ultimately proves nothing. The methodology, raw data and conclusions are the appropriate objects of scientific criticism. Where these have been set out clearly, as Sandfort has done, there is no valid reason to allude to the supposed sexual orientation of the researcher. Furthermore, science is an enterprise which seeks to discover and describe the way things are, not the way some people think they ought to be. Effective science requires one to set aside private moral views, religious ideologies, reactions to personalities and aesthetic judgments. These principles have generally been acknowledged in scientific circles since the time of Galileo’s recantations. Nevertheless, Mrazek has spent a lot of words obliquely suggesting that Sandfort is a self-justifying paedophile. For example, Mrazek writes, “… one is confronted with the reality that the study sample are all men actively involved in the paedophile movement, who have a strong self-interest in the results of the research. Their beliefs include ‘ … it is important to realize that friendships between adults and children in which sex occurs are mostly good for both partners’ (p. 9) and that ‘paedophiles often make the best educators because of their warm interest in the child’ (p. 9). “Mrazek’s manner of quoting from the book creates the impression that these are opinions expressed by the men in the sample, or perhaps are Sandfort’s words. Reference to the book will show that the first is a excerpt from an NVSH brochure, and the second is a quote from Dr. Edward Brongersma. Who is Mrazek trying to fool? Furthermore, there were no men in the sample, which was comprised of boys between the ages of 10 and 16. The men, with whom the boys had relationships, had no influence on the outcome of the study. Mrazek claims that “the work is in part being sponsored by an organized association of paedophiles …”. This is simply not true. The research was undertaken under the auspice of the University of Utrecht, a distinguished institution which is not beholden to anyone. The NVSH, which contributed towards the research, is not an association of paedophiles. The Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sexuele Hervorming (Dutch Association for Sexual Reform) is a non-profit organization dedicated to sexual reform in all spheres, including the free and unprejudiced dissemination of information. It is, in many ways, analogous to the Family Planning Association, and has existed for over a century, offering services in education, family planning, STD clinics and counselling, as well as sponsoring workgroups for sexual minorities. It is a nation-wide, multi-faceted organization with about 8,500 members. The NVSH has a high profile and good public standing in the Netherlands. Mrazek imputes scientific infidelity to Sandfort without any justification and has offended many people in this country with his prejudicial allegations. Informed readers are likely to question Mrazek’ s scientific integrity.
Previous Parts: Excerpts from Paidika: Benjamin Rossen reviews Theo Sandfort (Part 1)…
=== |
…. |
| Sub-Blog Archive – EQF Library Archive |
||
Our Love Frontier 