1. The bill’s history can be found at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/s/basp1000.dll?Get&S=21&Root=hjr36.
2. The resolutions full title is: “Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children.” The resolution can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.+Con.+Res.+107. [And here]
of the Golden Key National Honor Society, and the Tennessee Psychological Association (TPA). Later, a letter was sent out by James Lawler, Ph.D., head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, saying that the inclusion of TPA was in error and that it was not a co-sponsor. No explanation was offered.
4. Although, APA CEO Dr. Raymond Fowler has suggested that the study by Rind et al. is sound because it passed peer-review, in a personal communication with this author (June 22, 1999), Fowler admitted that he actually never actually investigated how the study passed peer review, or if it even did. It was later revealed that Rind et al. was thoroughly rejected by its first set of peer-reviewers for the Psychological Bulletin; the authors were asked not to resubmit the paper (personal communication with original reviewer who wishes to remain anonymous). Apparently, Rind et al. resubmitted their paper after a change in editors, and the paper given to a new set of reviewers. At least one of these reviewers also rejected the article. It remains unclear what portion (if any) of the second set of reviewers recommended the paper for publication.
5. Although, Rind et al. (1998) acknowledged the problem, they chose not to correct for it saying, “the attenuation is small in absolute magnitude for small effect sizes,” and that “effect sizes would increase at most by .03” [italics added]. (p. 41). It is important to note that .03 was the exact difference in magnitude that Rind et al. reported between male and female effect sizes (r = .07 and r = .10, respectively). Because lower effect sizes indicate better adjustment, Rind et al. reported that a major findings of their study was that “self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women” (p. 22). After correcting for attenuation due to base rate differences, Dallam et al. reported that effect sizes for males corresponded to r = .11, which is practically identical to the corrected effect size for females, r = .12.
7. SafeHaven refers self-described “boy-lovers” to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (an organization which advocates for those claiming to be falsely accused of abusing children) for information and support. http://www.safet.net/info/index.html).
8. Dr. Edward Brongersma is a former member of the Dutch Parliament whose career was interrupted by his arrest in the 1950s for sexual contact with an adolescent boy. After serving less than a year in prison, he was re-elected to the Senate and served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee. He subsequently traveled the world writing about and campaigning for the acceptance of pedophilia. He died in 1998.
9. Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia was founded in 1987. A multidisciplinary coalition of academicians from the United States and Europe sit on its advisory board. In the journal’s first issue, the editors outlined their goals by stating:
10. The organization International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE) was founded in the mid-1990s to encourage cooperation between pedophile advocacy organizations from around the world. NAMBLA is its largest member, and Australia along with every major European country is represented in its membership. According to its website, IPCE’s purpose is to exchange opinions and ideas, to share information and to coordinate political and other strategies for the emancipation of pedophiles and the decriminalization of consensual intergenerational relationships. [...old link...] < http://www.ipce.org/ >
11. The conference also coincided with the release of a book edited by Visser titled, De Andere Kant van de Medaille. Over de Vraag: Is Pedofilie Misbruik van Kinderen? [The Other Side of the Coin. About the Question: Is Pedophilia Child Abuse?], which devotes a section to describing the results of Rind et al.’s (1998) research. See also, Visser, H. (1998, December 18). Pastorate and pedophilia. Symposium sponsored by the Paulus Kerk. De Andere Kant van de Medaille (The Other Side of the Coin), Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved July 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web: [...old link...] [Correct link]
12. It is interesting to note that in their address, Rind et al. (December 12, 1998) suggested that their views on child sexual abuse were consistent with those of then current APA president Martin Seligman: “In one of his recent books, Seligman reviewed some of the research on the correlates of CSA and concluded, as we have, that mental health researchers have vastly overstated the harmful potential of CSA. He commented that “it is time to turn down the volume” on this issue that has risen to histrionic proportions. . . . We concur completely with Seligman’s observations.” The passages described come from Seligman’s 1994 book, What You Can Change & What You Cannot, published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
13. In addition, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA and SafeHaven have promoted Rind et al.’s findings on their websites, and their study has been prominently featured in numerous pedophile publications (e.g., Fergusson, 1999; G. G., 1998; Riegel, 2000).
14. Rind et al.’s (1998) proposed redefinition has not been supported by mainstream researchers in the field of child maltreatment (e.g., Ondersma et al., 1999; Ondersma et al., in press) or by the APA (see American Psychological Association, 1999). The consensus opinion in the field is that sexual contact between an adult and a child, involves an abuse of adult’s position and power (e.g., Courtois, 1988; “Psychiatric Association Criticizes,” 1999). Thus a demonstration of harm is not viewed as necessary to make a determination of abuse.
15. Although, Rind et al. (1998) failed to credit Jones’ work, it is clear that both Rind and Bauserman were familiar with his paper as they had favorably cited it in a previous publication (see Rind & Bauserman, 1993). Bauserman (1990) was also published in the same special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality dedicated to “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” as Jones (1990).