Date: May 02, 2017
01) We Stand Against “Hearts Progress
It is not my intent to defend Heart Progress, as should be obvious. It is my intent, to respond to a portion of the ignorance in this video. This is also a very unpolished post…I’m not even sure I finished it…It was time to do something with it, and get it out of the way.
The “facts” you quote are all very interesting, but there are a few dire problems with your list of “facts”…
Correlation does not equal causation.
Pedophilia does not exist in a vacuum.
There are commonly mitigating factors outside of the thing itself, which are more likely to be the cause of turmoil. Often, the conflict between the thing and that factor, are the formula which makes for turmoil, trauma and damage.
Simply pointing to something and implying “a lot of terrible things are because of that” does not work, when you are failing to take the entire social system into account. You’re doing nothing more than assigning the end result of conflict to that one thing, without being fair to the nature and impact of that thing, and without fairly weighing the nature and impact of outside factors.
The majority of people in this field, have established themselves to be anything but impartial…And the impartiality of their work [ie: studies] has been destroyed by this.
…people like David L. Finkelhor, a yes man who spent his career forcing research to bend around cultural and political bias.
I’d like to share with you a true story…
Almost twenty years ago, a university which was undisclosed due to the sensitive nature of its undertaking, began a broad research study on non-institutionalized “pedophiles”. This was kept so far under the radar, that the duty of traveling the country and collecting data was delegated to a small handful of individuals in the online “pedophile” community. The initial study had roughly 300 non-institutional participants. These were people who were not forced to participate, and who were not under pressure to skew their answers [to mirror whatever they believe the state wants them to say]. They represent a social demographic, previously thought impossible to study, due to extreme social hostility keeping them underground, far away from public attention.
The motives behind this research were varied…
…From the perspective of the researchers, this was groundbreaking research and an examination into the unknown, promising previously uncollected knowledge.
…From the perspective of some in the field, they wanted to know more about degrees of harm in “Child Sexual Abuse”, in hopes they could fine tune their practice in therapy.
…From the perspective of “pedophiles”, they could finally begin to have a scientifically valid, social model of themselves as a demographic…They could begin to know the statistical facts about themselves, as a group…A necessary asset, we continue to be denied, almost two decades later…
At roughly the same time…quite unfortunately…The APA commissioned Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch to conduct a meta analysis on “The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse”, based off of 59 research studies.
…Now, stick with me…I promise, I will get to my point soon…
01) Let me quote a bit from Wikipedia…
“In 1997, psychology professor Bruce Rind from Temple University and doctoral student Philip Tromovitch from the University of Pennsylvania published a literature review in The Journal of Sex Research of seven studies regarding adjustment problems of victims of child sexual abuse (CSA). To avoid the sampling bias that, they argued, existed in most studies of CSA (which drew from samples mostly in the mental health or legal systems and thus were, as a sample, unlike the population as a whole), the 1997 study combined data from studies using only national samples of individuals expected to be more representative of the population of child sexual abuse victims. This study examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants. Four of the studies came from the United States, and one each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain.
Based on the results, they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect. The following year, Rind, Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman (then a professor at the University of Michigan) published a meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin of 59 studies (36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master’s theses) with an aggregate sample size of 35,703 college students (13,704 men and 21,999 women). In most of the 59 studies, CSA was defined by the authors based on legal and moral criteria.
Integrating the sometimes disparate and conflicting definitions, CSA was defined as “a sexual interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when coercion is used.” “Child” was sometimes defined, not biologically, but as underaged or as a minor under the legal age of consent.
All these studies were included in the meta-analysis because many CSA researchers, as well as lay persons, view all types of socio-legally defined CSA as morally and/or psychologically harmful. When this research, the U.S. Congress, and the APA refer to CSA and “children” in the context of sexual relations with adults, they are not referring simply to biological (prepubescent) children but to adolescents under the age of consent as well, which varies between 16 and 18 years old in the U.S.
The results of the meta-analysis indicated that college students who had experienced CSA were slightly less well-adjusted compared to other students who had not experienced CSA, but that family environment was a significant confound that may be responsible for the association between CSA and harm. Intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment were due to confounding variables in most studies rather than to the sexual abuse itself (though exceptions were noted for abuse accompanied by force or incest). Both studies addressed four “assumed properties” of CSA, identified by the authors: gender equivalence (both genders affected equally), causality (CSA causes harm), pervasiveness (most victims of CSA are harmed) and intensity (the harm is normally significant and long-term), concluding that all four “assumed properties” were questionable and had several potential confounds.
Based on the closely mirrored results of both studies, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman questioned the scientific validity of a single term “child sexual abuse” and suggested a variety of different labels for sexual contact between adults and non-adults based on age and the degree to which the child was forced or coerced into participating. They concluded with a discussion of the legal and moral implications of the article, stating that the “wrongfulness” and “harmfulness” of sexual acts are not inherently linked, and finished with the statement:
the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
— Rind et al. (1998) p. 47″
About “The Rind Report” Conclusions…
Given the extreme diversity in physical act, psychological state, individual setting, and various other factors in cases deemed “Child Sexual Abuse”…what they found, was unsurprising common sense…Or, it should have been.
You have to keep in mind, that we are living in a world where even relationships chosen and intensely desired by the child [or teen], are still deemed “Child Sexual Abuse”…even where the manifestation was factually wonderful, for the primary individuals involved.
Of course…some percentage of these kids are going to turn out just fine, in the aftermath of their experiences…an obscured truth, which has been known all along.
What sets off the alarm here…is the fact that research studies are not allowed to consider this clearly manifested conclusion, let alone acknowledge it as a valid part of the data collected.
This degree of interference, alone, displays that the integrity of “Child Sexual Abuse” research has been invalidated.
The sin of “The Rind Report” was not that it stated the obvious…It’s that it exposed the critical corruption in this field of research…and explained why this state of affairs needed to change.
…Getting back around to the point…
…The field of “Child Sexual Abuse” research, and related subjects like “pedophile” research, are terminally corrupt…They are little more than state propaganda, held back from the act of unfettered research, and forced to purport state sanctioned “conclusions”.
You can find and quote all the statistics from “research studies” you like…But your sources are corrupt…And your statistics are meaningless propaganda.
That is the reality of the matter.
Oh…And I know about the previously discussed research, because I was one of the non-institutionalized “pedophiles” involved in it.
…I personally witnessed the rabid fanatics attacking it, misrepresenting it, and doing everything within their power to run it into the ground…
…The fallout of the Meta Analysis saw to it, that not only was the University in question critically defunded of government grants…but the primary researcher was essentially run out of his own field of expertise…The research we took part in was shelved…and presumably has been collecting dust in a warehouse, for the past two decades…
The only thing we were ever promised as “the pedophile community”…is that we would be treated fairly, and the methodological integrity used would be consistent with that of any other sound study…The statistics would fall where they would, without researchers bias.
On a personal note…if I had never lived through this experience, I would have never imagined how corrupt, monopolized, zealously manipulated and viciously controlled this field is.
It blew my mind, coming to this realization…It ultimately angered, infuriated and radicalized me.
A closing note…
As a pedophile, living in the “lovely” United States of America…my entire life, as far back as I can remember, has been plagued with declarations from on high…from “experts” and activists, and lawmakers, and media entertainers…and laymen who need something to complain about…
…And those declarations have purported to be “what I am”, and “what I do”…and “how I live”…and “what tolerance of me leads to”…and “what must be done to me”…and “how I deserve the most nightmarish of assaults”…and “how I don’t deserve to live”…
Thing is…none of those things mirror who I am, or how I have factually lived my life…And I understand the absolute hellish abuse it is, for “your kind” to force people like me to live a terrorized existence like this…all of our lives…going well back into our own childhoods…inflicting upon us something, which affects us for a lifetime.
Even when we step forward to do objectively good things, which could benefit everyone in this world [ie: the previously mentioned research]…We merely face an endless onslaught of attack and malignment for it…
It is the rabid, foaming at the mouth fanatics who have taught me quite well…that some circumstances demand of you, to tell the world to “Go Fuck Yourself and Drop Dead!”…And it’s imperative, even if only for your own sanity, that you plot your own course in life.