Category Archives: Research

Important works of research

Exploring the Use of Online Forums in those who are Sexually Attracted to Children…


Research
….

Date: March 10, 2021

01) LINK

“Study Information:

Title: Exploring the Use of Online Forums in those who are Sexually Attracted to Children

What is the study purpose? You are invited to participate in an online study aiming to understand the use of online forums by people who are sexually attracted to children. We have no financial interest in conducting this study.

Am I eligible to participate? You are eligible to participate in this study if you are age 18 or older and if you identify as an individual who is sexually attracted to children under the age of 15 years old. As the survey is in English, you should also be confident in your ability to understand the English language.

What does my participation involve? You will be completing an anonymous online survey that will take between 20 to 30 minutes to complete. No personally identifying information will be collected (e.g., IP address). There will be no way for the investigators to link to your specific survey and you will remain anonymous through your participation.

What will I be asked? You will be asked questions about your participation in online forums/support groups aimed at those who are sexually attracted to children. You will not be asked about past or present sexual behaviour.

What are the benefits? Your survey data will contribute to the literature on the role of online forums for people who are sexually attracted to children.

What are the risks? You will be asked to volunteer information regarding aspects of your sexual preferences, experiences within online forums, and about individuals in your personal life who might know about your sexual attraction to children. Some of these questions could make you feel uncomfortable.

Efforts to safeguard and anonymize information have been taken; however, you may want to take additional precautions to protect your anonymity. For example, you might choose to avoid completing the survey in a public space, delete browser history, or use other security measures. The survey has been hosted on Soscisurvey, which allows you to complete the survey if you are using TOR browsers.

You may contact Dr. Michael Seto or the Research Ethics Board at the Royal’s Institute of Mental Health Research if you have any concerns. Please remember that by contacting the researchers or the Research Ethics Board, we will be aware of your participation in the study, but we will not be able to connect you to your individual responses.

What will be done with my information? The information you share will be anonymous and will only be used for research purposes. You will be anonymous as no personal identifying information will be gathered. This means that you cannot be connected to your responses to the survey.

Privacy. Your privacy is protected by the server http://www.soscisurvey.de (no storage of IP addresses; use of SSL encryption with a signed certificate; server is secured against unauthorized access according to common standards; access to the server is SSH-encrypted; the questionnaires do not use any cookies). The data you provide is securely held on a server in Germany. There is very little risk associated with storing data in an outside server in Germany; in fact, “in an international comparison, Germany offers a very high level of data protection – both with regard to the obligations of companies as well as with regard to governmental/agency access and interference” (see https://www.soscisurvey.de/en/privacy). Further, the data are subject to legal regulations such as the Federal Data Protection Act, and the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

Please note that you are free to withdraw from the study at any point in time by closing your web browser and incomplete studies will be deleted manually; however, due to anonymization it is not possible to delete data after completing the survey.

The data will be stored on password protected computers belonging to the researchers and will be stored for ten (10) years. The only individuals allowed to access the information will be members of the research team. Once data is collected and analyzed, the results will be shared through presentations, journal articles, or seminars.

How can I withdraw from the study? Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any point in time by exiting your web browser. If you choose to withdraw, your data will be destroyed and not analyzed. Once the study is complete, researchers will not be able to remove your answers because no identifiable information will be included.

How can I get more information? If you have any questions about the study or would like to see the results, you may contact the researchers by email:

Principal Investigator:

Michael Seto, Ph. D., C. Psych,

Director, Forensic Research Unit

The Royal’s Institute of Mental Health Research

Email: Michael.Seto@theroyal.ca

Study Coordinator:

Kailey Roche, MSc.

Department of Psychology

Carleton University

Email: kaileyroche@cmail.carleton.ca

Please note that if you contact the investigators directly, you will be identifying yourself and it will be known that you have completed the survey. Results for this study are anticipated to be completed by September of 2021 and will be available upon request by email. You can also find a summary of results on the online forums where we previously posted recruitment information.

Certification: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institute of Mental Health Research REB as study #2021-001. If you have any ethical concerns about the study, or the way it is conducted, please contact the REB office: kristi.wilde@theroyal.ca”

….

Pierre Verdrager: The Forbidden Child. How pedophilia became sandaleuse, preface by François de Singly [2013]…


Research
….

Date: March 03, 2021

I should credit Volshebnik for sharing this.

01) L’Enfant interdit. Comment la pédophilie est devenue sandaleuse, préface de François de Singly

“To write a book on pedophilia is to take the risk of being suspected of having a penchant for this type of behavior. There are subjects that stick to you, under the gaze of others, in a way to the skin. So the first question asked of Muriel Darmon during her anorexia investigation was about her probable past with an eating disorder! This suspicion is all the greater as the sociologist or sociologist wishes to maintain a certain neutrality by not condemning those who defend such behavior, but by attempting to reconstitute their argumentative logic. As a preamble to The Forbidden Child, Pierre Verdrager therefore feels compelled to make it clear that he is not a pedophile. He takes a second risk, that of arousing discontent on the part of those who prefer forgetting. Pedophilia strikes the conscience and public opinion so strongly today that it is hard to imagine that a few decades ago it could have been defended by respectable people or groups. Everyone, or almost, has an interest in this occultation: the defenders of the pedophile cause to be forgotten, the contemptors not to mix historical relativism with one of the great prohibitions of contemporary societies.

On the social construction of reality This question of moral relativism, associated with the social construction of reality, in this case of the category “pedophilia” – the first work which, in France, bears the term “pedophile” date from 1980, and the term “pedophilia” from 1988 – constitutes one of the interests of the book. One of the most frequently used arguments in symbolic struggles is based on the schema of constructivism. This is clearly noticeable in debates about gender and in queer thought. The differences of sex are interpreted according to cultures and times in different ways, they are part of gender, socially variable. This is proof, say those who take the queer point of view, that no trait depends on the biological truth of sex. These supporters therefore believe that gender is, to a very large extent, a social construct. It is therefore possible to question these stereotypes, these prejudices, these naturalistic and moralizing illusions. We could establish a list of uses of this argument which lead to a certain relativism. Thus, in La Reproduction by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, the statements on the “arbitrariness” of what constitutes school culture may have had the effect of making people believe that the value of this culture is strictly independent of its content, that it exclusively reflects a certain balance of power between the classes, imposing on the whole of society the recognition of a superiority of the culture of the dominant. In The Forbidden Child, Pierre Verdrager takes pleasure in showing that , contrary to popular belief, the argument of social construction, coupled with relativism, does not itself have any intrinsic force! Indeed, attempting to promote pedophilia, these promoters sought to prove that it was appreciated at certain historical times, in certain cultures, and therefore that his conviction is subject to evaluation. And by a nice turnaround, Pierre Verdrager, carefully reconstructing the arguments, dated, of this valuation of pedophilia in the years 1960-1970, observes that such relativism depends on certain social and cultural conditions. Relativism, based on social construction, is itself relative! In debates, therefore, relativism cannot prevail over the opposing argument of the intrinsic force of the prohibition. In the case of pedophilia, he was beaten. This important observation allows us to outline the social conditions for the reception of relativistic positions…”

….

Identifying the Coping Strategies of Nonoffending Pedophilic and Hebephilic Individuals From Their Online Forum Posts…


Research
….

Date: November 09, 2020

01) LINK

“Sarah J. Jones, Caoilte Ó Ciardha, Ian A. Elliott

Abstract

Individuals who identify as pedophilic or hebephilic, and who do not offend, are increasingly visible in online discourse and as a focus of research. Developing knowledge about this population will offer insights into their psychological needs and, potentially, into the mechanisms and strategies individuals use to live offense-free lives. This study examined coping strategies among members of an online forum supporting pedohebephilic individuals who do not wish to offend. Forum users’ posts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Eleven themes emerged, which were classifiable into three superordinate themes around (a) the acceptance of pedophilia, (b) strategies to stay safe, and (c) dealing with sexual arousal. These themes offer insight into the varying strategies used by these individuals to cope with stress and/or to remain offense-free. Understanding whether these strategies are adaptive or maladaptive may help develop better support services for those who have not offended and may inform prevention efforts.”

….

Rind, Bruce (2016): Reactions to First Postpubertal Female Same-Sex Sexual Experience in the Kinsey Sample: A Comparison of Minors with Peers, Minors with Adults, and Adults with Adults…


Research
….

Date: November 01, 2020

01) Filip30: new results from Kinsey-study about child-adult-sex…

“Good news! The most important scientific magazine about sexuality has published a new article by Bruce Rind:

Rind, Bruce (2016): Reactions to First Postpubertal Female Same-Sex Sexual Experience in the Kinsey Sample: A Comparison of Minors with Peers, Minors with Adults, and Adults with Adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, published online October 25th 2016

Bruce Rind writes about his study:

“This study examined reactions to first postpubertal same-sex sexual experience in the Kinsey female same-sex sample (consisting of females with extensive postpubertal same-sex experience) as a function of participant and partner ages. (…) Data were collected by Kinsey interviewers between 1939 and 1961 (M year=1947). Girls under 18 (M age=14.9), whose sexual experience was with a woman (M age=26.3), reacted positively just as often as girls under 18 (M age=14.1) with peers (Mage=15.0) and women (Mage=22.7)with women (Mage=26.3). The positive-reaction rates were, respectively, 85, 82, and 79 %. In a finer-graded analysis, younger adolescent girls (B14) (Mage=12.8) with women (Mage=27.4) had a high positive reaction rate (91%), a rate reached by no other group. For women (M age=22.2) with same-aged peers (M age=22.3), this rate was 86%.Girls with peers or women had no emotionally negative reactions (e.g., fear, disgust, shame, regret);women with women rarely did. Results contradicted prevailing clinical, legal, and lay beliefs that minor–adult sex is inherently traumatic and would be distinguished as such compared to age-concordant sex.”

It is very interesting to see that once again older minors did NOT like sex with adults more than younger minors. This is the same result as in several other studies. Here comes the new result in this issue:

“Minors´ positive reaction (enjoyed “much”) to first postpubertal same-sex sexual experience as a function of age at experience, in original Kinsey female same-sex sample”:

Minor less or equal 11 years old + adult: 100 % (n=1)
Minor 12 years old + adult: 100 % (n=1)
Minor 13 years old + adult: 100 % (n=5)
Minor 14 years old + adult: 75 % (n=4)
Minor 15 years old + adult: 100 % (n=2)
Minor 16 years old + adult: 67 % (n=3)
Minor 17 years old + adult: 80 % (n=10)

“Rates of positive and negative reactions to first postpubertal same-sex sexual experience, in Kinsey female same-sex sample, by five finergraded participant-partner age groups”:

Minor + peer – Enoyed “much” – 82 % (N=78)
Minor less equal 14 + adult – 91 % (N=11)
Minor (15-17) + adult – 80 % (N=58)
Adult + peer adult – 86 % (N=58)
Adult + older adult – 63 % (N=30)
Total 81 % (N=192)

Correction:

Sorry, in one sentence not 58 but 15 girls were involved:

wrong: “Minor (15-17) + adult – 80 % (N=58)”

right: “Minor (15-17) + adult – 80 % (N=15)”

….

Trigger Warnings Fail to Help and May Even Harm…


Research
….

Date: October 24, 2020

01) LINK

“A new study published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science shines additional light on this ongoing debate and finds that trigger warnings offer little to no help in avoiding painful memories and perhaps are even harmful for the survivors of past emotional trauma.

“Specifically, we found that trigger warnings did not help trauma survivors brace themselves to face potentially upsetting content,” said Payton Jones, a researcher at Harvard University and lead author on the study. “In some cases, they made things worse.”

Worryingly, the researchers discovered that trigger warnings seem to increase the extent to which people see trauma as central to their identity, which can worsen the impact of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long run.

“Over the past decade, there has been extensive debate on the appropriateness of trigger warnings, particularly in academic environments, where they have been accused of promoting censorship,” Jones said. “Other critics have suggested the trigger warnings may create an unrealistic bubble, free from negative thoughts, which would not prepare students for life beyond academia.”

Whether trigger warnings are explicitly harmful was less clear, though Jones and his colleagues did find evidence that trigger warnings increased the belief that their trauma is an essential part of a survivor’s life story, which research has shown is countertherapeutic.

“I was surprised that something so small—a few trigger warnings in a short experiment—could influence the way someone views their trauma,” noted Jones. “In our culture, I think we overemphasize how important trauma should be in a person’s life. Trigger warnings are one example of this.”

02) Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories

“Trigger warnings alert trauma survivors about potentially disturbing forthcoming content. However, empirical studies on trigger warnings suggest that they are functionally inert or cause small adverse side effects. We conducted a preregistered replication and extension of a previous experiment. Trauma survivors (N = 451) were randomly assigned to either receive or not to receive trigger warnings before reading passages from world literature. We found no evidence that trigger warnings were helpful for trauma survivors, for participants who self-reported a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, or for participants who qualified for probable PTSD, even when survivors’ trauma matched the passages’ content. We found substantial evidence that trigger warnings countertherapeutically reinforce survivors’ view of their trauma as central to their identity. Regarding replication hypotheses, the evidence was either ambiguous or substantially favored the hypothesis that trigger warnings have no effect. In summary, we found that trigger warnings are not helpful for trauma survivors.”

….

Performative Rage Over Pedophilia Doesn’t Protect Kids…


Research
….

Date: October 18, 2020

01) LINK

“For decades, I’ve worked with people in poverty, those who experience abuse and neglect, and those who perpetrate abuse. My goal has always been to help reduce future abuse and violence. Like many, I’ve experienced anger and rage at those who use sexuality to harm others. But I’ve come to learn that these feelings, while understandable, don’t help to prevent more abuse. In fact, they may make it worse.

Suddenly, it seems like we are at war with people who want to “normalize” sex with children, and social media is filled with cries for murder, execution, and cancellation of anyone associated.

Most children who experience sexual abuse are abused by people they know. Over 90% of sexual assaults against children, are committed by relatives, siblings, parents, teachers, pastors, ministers, or neighbors.

Less than half (around 40%) of sexual assaults against children are committed by pedophiles.

Pedophilia…is not, in and of itself alone, a highly significant risk factor for sexual abuse of children. I know this seems hard to believe, but research demonstrates that it is antisocial personality traits, low empathy for the victim, disinhibiting drugs and alcohol, and isolation which lead to sexual abuse of children.

Many people with pedophilic disorder never sexually abuse children.

Pedophiles appear to be born, not made, and have distinct neurological differences which correlate with these disturbed sexual desires. But when pedophiles have empathy, have an awareness of the need to follow social rules, and are sober, these people appear to have no clear risk for sexually abusive behavior.”

He seems to confuse pedophilia with pedophilic disorder, and paints the mere status of being a pedophile as “disordered”…Which, personally having lived half a century this way…I’m just going to come right out and say it…

…That is grossly wrong.

As a pedophile, I am not disordered!

I do appreciate his further comments on the immigration children, held up and sexually abused in “our” political and legal system…and how so few of the outraged and angry, ever say anything about those kids.

….

Arousal to Pedophilic Stimuli in Normal Men (Hall et al.)…


Research
….

Date: October 15, 2020

01) Arousal to Pedophilic Stimuli in Normal Men (Hall et al.)

“Hall et al studied a community sample of normal men and found that fully 25% of them reacted to pedophilic pornography at levels that equaled or exceeded their response to adult pornography.

Hall, G.C.N., Hirschman, R., & Oliver, L.L., “Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men,” Behavior Therapy, Vol. 26, 1995, pp. 681-694.

Abstract

Self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a sample of volunteers. Over 1/4 of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.”

….