Category Archives: Research

Important works of research

The Dark Side of Science: The Bobo Doll Experiment 1963 (Short Documentary)…


Date: September 15, 2021

01) LINK

“The Bobo doll experiment is the name for a series of experiments performed by psychologist Albert Bandura to test his social learning theory.

Between 1961 and 1963, he studied the behaviour of children after they watched an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo the clown doll.

The most famous version of the experiment measured the children’s behaviour after seeing an adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically attacking the Bobo doll.

The results of the experiment would be used as the justification of the anti video game movement of the 1980 and 1990s.

The study was considered controversial but not as bad as the Baby Albert study.”

There’s something inherently strange, about taking a well known toy that was created for aggressive and violent play [the Bobo doll], and expecting that a child’s interaction with it would be anything other than aggressive and violent.

Of course they’re going to punch, kick and shove around the doll…That’s explicitly what it was made for, and how it was marketed.

As I recall it…this toy was an acceptable method, of letting out your frustrations and hyper energy…That’s the point behind it’s very existence.


The Forbidden Fruit of Incest…


Date: September 14, 2021

01) LINK

“Sources relevant to the topic of incest are listed below in chronological order. The list does not claim to be comprehensive. Rather, it aims to present sources which engage with, or are relevant to, critical debates around the topic. Incest simply refers to erotic and / or sexual encounters between relatives, usually blood relatives or cousins. Definitions of what is considered incest, erotic and / or sexual, will vary by person to person and author to author. In my experience, studies prior to the 1980’s tended to focus on intercourse and relationships between close blood relatives in the immediate family, such as father-daughter or mother-son relations. Whereas studies after 1980 often use an expansive definition where incest does not necessarily involve intercourse or a long-term relationship. Different definitions will shape research findings; more expansive definitions will inflate prevalence rates, for instance. You are advised to pay attention to these differences.” – Prue


Is Most Published Research Wrong?…


Date: August 18, 2021

01) LINK

“Mounting evidence suggests a lot of published research is false.

Resources used in the making of this video:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False:

Trouble at the Lab:

Science isn’t broken:


UNICEF report says pornography is not always harmful to children…


Date: June 09, 2021

01) LINK [PDF – Check Your Downloads Folder]

02) LINK

“The report published by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) addresses how government policy can be used to protect children from harmful, abusive and violent content online. Its conclusion is based on a European study of 19 EU countries that found in most countries, most children who saw pornographic images were “neither upset nor happy.” In fact, the report UNICEF relies on says that 39 percent of Spanish children were happy after seeing pornography.

The 2020 EU Kids Online Study concluded that some children and young people “intentionally seek out sexual content” for a variety of reasons and that seeing sexual images “might also represent an opportunity” to provide answers to questions about puberty and sexual identity. The study encouraged “seeing the nuances” which lead children to seek out and view sexual content online.

UNICEF says any efforts to block children from accessing pornography online might infringe on their human rights. UNICEF bases this claim on an expansive interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

This needs to be acknowledged and shared.

I notice how the detractors are reaching for a variety of controversial red herrings, instead of acknowledging and responding to the substance of the actual report.

That is how things work with them…They have a zealous, dogmatic agenda, which centers around themselves holding control over others…and anything which gets in the way of that, must be neutralized…censored…crushed…done away with…however you want to put it.

Yes…there is a lot of controversial pornographic content that gets put online…No, I would not suggest that everything is fit for sexual education.

Here’s the thing…

…I remember as a kid the sorts of pictures that were typical in pornography…Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, Etc…and it was typically just straight forward sex shots.

Okay…Yes…I never saw gay porn [nor other forms of porn] before coming online…and I know there is a lot of branching into niche interests…Plus, I’ll need to read this study report more thoroughly to know for sure…but they’re likely to be talking about photographs [and video] of very basic, non-violent and culturally common sex acts taking place.

There simply is no established path, where a child or youth seeing two people engaged in a sex act, objectively harms or injures that child or youth…

…And No!…You do not get to cite every negative thing that befalls that child or youth in life thereafter, and blame it on porn watching!

We all have crappy, hard lives, breaking down and devolving towards death…everything becomes harder and harder, after a point…and we all have difficult, scary and unnerving social and personal obstacles we are forced to navigate, and it’s hard…maybe extra hard for some…

…You cannot take typical social phenomena that happens to a vast portion [or even all] of the population, formerly abused or not, exposed to sex or not, etc, etc…and claim that it all boils down to “being abused”…or in some way being exposed to something, which zealot cultural architects do not want you involved with.

I call B.S. when people do this…It is not a sound counter argument for anything.

Last point…

…It always galls me, how there is literally no acknowledgement by the governments and organizations in power, of the very real children and youth who’ve had positive experiences involving sex…which skews people’s understanding of the issues, and leaves them with a grossly distorted perception of those issues.

To make things worse, we get the “Beware: Here Be Dragons!” treatment, out of these governments and organizations…which really causes public perception [and emotion] to go completely off the rails…

…And the second anyone with a microphone, on a substantial social platform, has the bravery to talk about this whole other world of ignored facts and experiences…they’re descended upon by “the proper people”, to be condemned as social heretics [and in some way morally/rationally deficient]…often threatened and intimidated into silence…if not by the people and organizations with power and influence, then by the hordes of abusive followers they have.

This silence and censorship has always been maintained, by threats, intimidation, abuses and making example of others who’ve broken the silence.

There is literally no public place set aside for mass consumption…where this kind of dialogue can even take place…

…They even habitually come to small projects like my own, right here…and attempt to get them shut down, if they at all can.

There are people in political and social power [with masses of faithful followers]…who hold complete intolerance towards discussing these kinds of issues, and facts of life…the realities of many people’s very existence.

These very real issues are not allowed a substantial public space, where they can be discussed, communicated and understood…negotiated over, even, by the general population.

The second it gains any social attention or traction, somebody is immediately working to snuff it out…usually in underhanded ways.

This state of affairs is dead wrong.


Should Knowledge Be Free?…


Date: May 21, 2021

01) LINK

“Should academic research be behind paywalls? Researchers and peer reviewers earn nothing for their work, and yet academic publishers boast enormous profit margins every year from subscription fees to journals. Especially during a global pandemic, is it right for scientific research to be pay-to-read?

Sci-Hub is an illegal website that offers almost all academic publications for free, created by Alexandra Elbakyan, who I interview in this video. Aaron Swartz, like Alexandra, felt that information should be freely available on the Internet. He ended his own life after being charged with wire fraud, because he illegally downloaded academic articles from JSTOR.

What is the way forward? Pre-prints? Researchgate?”


Relationship of Child Sexual Abuse Survivor Self-Perception of Consent to Current Functioning…


Date: May 17, 2021

01) Filip30: Dissertation „Relationship of Child Sexual Abuse

“Anthan R. Daly (2021): Relationship of Child Sexual Abuse Survivor Self-Perception of Consent to Current Functioning. Dissertation.

In this survey of college students, there was no significant correlation between the variable sexual acts of people before the age of 18 with people at least five years older and the two dependent variables psychological impairment and sexual functioning after controlling the confounder family cohesion.”

02) LINK

“Date of Award

Document Type

Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

College of Psychology

First Advisor
Steven N. Gold

Second Advisor
Christian DeLucia

Third Advisor
Jennifer Davidtz

Fourth Advisor
Scott Poland

childhood sexual abuse, consent, family environment, psychological functioning, psychology, sexuality


In 1998 Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman conducted a meta-analysis using a college sample which challenged the prevailing belief that childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has inherent deleterious effects. Resultantly, the authors proposed alternative terminology (e.g., child-adult sex), without adequate investigation into what distinguishes child-adult sex from CSA. In response, the current study investigated the relationship between CSA, consent and adult functioning in a college sample. The sample consisted of 297 undergraduate college students, ranging in age from 18 to 63-years-old. Data was collected at a mid-sized university in the southeastern United States. The measures utilized in the study include the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL 90-R), Characteristics of First Sexual Experiences and Demographics Survey, Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale-Second Edition (FACES-II), and the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Functioning-Revised (DISF-R). Proposed questions were, 1) prevalence of CSA in the college sample 2) the effect of CSA status and consent on the outcome measures and 3) differences in consent between the CSA and non-CSA groups. The findings were that approximately 10% of the sample reported experiencing CSA, that sexual orientation (e.g., SCL 90-R) and perceived consent of the sexual experience (e.g., SCL 90-R and FACES-II) were the only variables that significantly impacted outcomes scores, and that participants in the CSA group were significantly more likely to report being victimized in their first sexual experiences. These results suggest that based on CSA status, a college sample does not exhibit significant deficits in psychological functioning or family environment and may not be comparable to samples of CSA survivors in the general population.”


Statistics On Behaviors: Clinical Features of Pedophilia and Implications for Treatment…


Date: May 07, 2021

01) LINK

“The authors discuss the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and review the literature on its clinical features, including data on prevalence, gender, age of onset, number of victims, frequency and type of acts, violence, impulsivity, and insight.

Type of Acts

With regard to the type of acts, there is consistent evidence that sexual intercourse is far less frequent than fondling and genital contact. In Gebhard et al.’s sample, only 2.3% of the 199 convictions of molesters against girls involved completed intercourse. 9 In violent sexual abuse offenses, however, the incidence of completed intercourse is much higher at 23%. In fact, much of the violence in sexually aggressive offenses involved physically coerced intercourse. Intercourse was also more frequent in incest cases, occurring in 8.7% of the convictions. Of the heterosexual, nonincest convictions, 74% involved genital contact, however, as did 90%–99% of the other child sexual abuse convictions. In Abel and Osborne’s 1992 study of 453 pedophilic offenders, 72.9% of reported acts involved touching, while 27.1% involved non-touching offenses (e.g., exhibitionism, voyeurism). 25

In general, it is likely that pragmatic factors affect the prevalence rates of various types of molestation. It is easier for adult men to gain access to boys than girls, less invasive acts are easier to commit than more invasive acts, and there are far more potential victims outside the home than inside the home. With victims inside the home, however, there is more opportunity for multiple molestations and more invasive sexual abuse (e.g. intercourse).

Although violent child sexual abuse does occur, it is much less frequent than nonviolent child sexual abuse. 18 In Gebhard et al.’s sample, only 25 (6.6%) cases involved the use of significant aggression. 9 In our analysis of intake data from CAP Behavioral Associates, an outpatient clinic for sex offenders, nonviolent methods of coercion were the most commonly listed. 28 According to intake data, 42 (33%) of 127 child molesters used manipulation, 29 (23%) used bribery, and 22 (17%) used no coercive method. Only 2 (1.6%) used assault (defined as use of physical force beyond what was necessary to commit the sexual offense) and 3 (2.4%) used threat, although 29 (23%) used force (physical force used solely to commit the sexual offense). When only the 82 subjects who admitted their offense were analyzed, those listed as using no coercive method dropped to 6 (7.3%). Bribery (27%) and manipulation (42%) were the most common methods, followed by force (22%). Threat and assault were both minimal (1%). 28

However, the subgroup of pedophiles who are violent may differ from nonviolent pedophiles on a number of domains. In Gebhard et al.’s study, the sexually aggressive child molesters had more impulsive offenses, were more likely to molest strangers, and had a higher incidence of completed intercourse. 9”

Here we see again, confirmation that violence within pedophilia is very rare.

It is so flipping hard to find detailed breakdowns like this via a search engine, that I hate to not take notes and share wherever I do stumble upon such detailed breakdowns.

Of course, I’ve complained about this numerous times over…Millions of people merely copy and paste the same brief claims, posted on a government agency website…claims which come off alarming and propagandist in nature, and which provide no balanced analysis whatsoever. As consequence, any search for detailed statistics results in a sea of instances of the exact same propaganda…Nobody is actually sharing any concrete information…and you basically just cannot find it, unless you already know where to look for it, and how to ask for it.

In addition…nearly everybody focuses on the most extreme, while entirely ignoring those pieces of information, which support a much more humane and honest picture of pedophiles…This grossly distorts peoples perception about pedophiles.

Someday, I’d like to be able to see statistics including all the happy instances of pedophilia, where no participant got hurt and all participants wanted to be involved…You know…the underground relationships that get protected and remembered fondly…but virtually nobody ever talks about these days.


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


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 (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 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


Study Coordinator:

Kailey Roche, MSc.

Department of Psychology

Carleton University


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:”