Best article yet on pedophilia

The South African branch of the Huffington Post just published an outstanding article on pedophilia written by Dr. Marlene Wasserman (a.k.a. Dr. Eve), called It’s Not A Popular Subject, But The Latest Research About Paedophilia May Help Us Protect Our Kids, and I have to say, I can’t find a single fault with it.  That may be a first.  Bravo to all involved!

5 thoughts on “Best article yet on pedophilia

  1. That article pretends to be oh so daring, oh so compassionate, and oh so scientific, on pedophilia (which, like the public usage of the term, is used broadly to refer to sex with anyone under 18, and which is how I’ll use it here).

    But Dr. Cantor is not the leading person doing research on pedophilia. He is the leading person doing research on pathological pedophilia, which we all know is a mere subgroup of the population. Dr. Cantor’s work would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous, prejudicially applying the results of the criminal and mentally ill, to the rest of the population of healthy and happy minor-attracted people.

    The leading person doing research on pedophilia is (still) Dr. Rind, and he gets right to the heart of the matter, dealing with the effects of childhood sex with adults, because this is where we are told the destruction of young lives begins. This is why we need to have all this research into pedophiles in the first place, otherwise nobody would care except for some trivia at cocktail parties. And the latest analysis published online this month is below, in which he focuses on boys and men, showing that for at least this group, when full-on sex is involved, and shockingly even when the sex is regarded negatively, the life-destroying trauma is nowhere to be found.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-017-1025-2

    As to scientists being “brave”… a scientist who can’t be brave isn’t worthy of the term. The history of science is full of people who were persecuted for telling the truth. That’s the job.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The article starts with a bit of a jolt:

    “No person wants to imagine children being sexual, consensually or non-consensually.”

    I think Dr Eve would do well to expend some thought and research on how she came to write such a sentence. It packs into its eleven words so much prejudice, ignorance and presumption. I mean, WTF is so bad about child sexuality?

    Imagine if it had read:

    “No person wants to imagine two men being sexual, consensually or non-consensually.”

    Who is she to speak for all of humanity, ‘humanity’ taken in its full geographical, cultural and historical extent – including societies that were not freaked out by child sexuality? I like to imagine kids being consensually sexual – but I guess I don’t count as a ‘person’.

    But I guess at least the sentence at least half-acknowledges that children can be consensually sexual.

    As for Cantor – though I acknowledge that he has educated and humanised the public somewhat on paedophilia, I consider his research as worthless. His sampling suffers, amongst other things, from Berkson’s Bias – which occurs when one studies a sub-sample of a sample – which has been selected according to quite specific variables.

    I know that that probably doesn’t make much sense – I explain it more thouroughly on my blog (https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/dr-cantor-and-the-case-of-the-missing-stigma-part-two/).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s