[Scientific Articles] [RBT Files]
David
A. Mrazek, MD, MRC Psych.
National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine
Journal of Homosexuality, 20 - 1/2, 1990
*
Bauserman, R.,
Objectivity and Ideology: Criticism of Theo Sandfort's Research on Man-Boy
Sexual Relations. Journal of Homosexuality 20:1/2
(1990).
Bauserman
has reviewed my critique of the work of Theo Sandfort as well as a critique by
Finkelhor and one by Masters and Johnson. Unfortunately, his review is based
more on emotion than reason. Sandfort's study is methodologically weak based on
inherent sample bias, demand characteristics of the questions, and unchecked
bias of the interviewers. While generalizability of these results is
acknowledged to be completely unwarranted, such generalizations are made despite
the author's stated disclaimer. Sandfort reported that selected young boys did
describe enjoying sex with adult men, but such an assertion could have been made
based on a series of self reports. In some ways, this is a good way to describe
this "study" which is the compilation of solicited testimonials. These
points were all made succinctly in my original one page review of Sandfort's
book and remain valid criticisms.
The
ethical problems of this study are particularly disturbing. The basic question
is whether appropriate human subject safeguards were apart of this research.
This question must be addressed concretely in proposing any research in the U.S.
Research involving children requires particularly scrupulous attention to human
subjects concerns.
In
this study, the researchers joined with the members of the National Pedophile
Workshops to "study" the boys who were the sexual "partners"
of its members. Both this study and the National Pedophile Workshops were
financially supported by the Netherlands Association for Sexual Reform. There is
no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern. However,
there is ample evidence that the study was politically motivated to
"reform" legislation. Specific risks that are not even acknowledged in
the book include contracting sexually transmitted diseases, legal prosecution,
and breached confidentiality leading to peer discrimination and family
disruptions. These researchers knowingly colluded with the perpetuation of
secret illegal activity. External review of their activities was minimal.
Possible negative consequences of their course of action were minimized despite
the reality that some of these boys were as young as eleven years of age. In the
majority of cases, these boys' parents were unaware of these sexual activities
with adult men, and the researchers contributed to this deception by their
actions. These ethical concerns lead to the crux of the matter. Even if this
study was methodologically sound, which it certainly is not, on moral grounds
alone such "research" cannot be sanctioned. Children are not
developmentally prepared to enter into sexual relationships on an informed and
equal basis with adults. It is a basic responsibility of society to protect children
and foster their development. These children were not adequately protected.