Vorige Start Volgende  

I p c e 

N E W S L E T T E R 

Number E13, June 2002 

Download as a ZIPped Word.doc file







The struggles about the free will, facts and morality; The debate about the publications of Rind, Bauserman & Tromovitch goes on –  a bird’s eye view, 1997 – 2002; Dr Frans Gieles


Some quotes from: Bruce Rind , Gay and Bisexual Adolescent Boys’ Sexual Experiences With Men: An Empirical Examination of Psychological Correlates in a Nonclinical Sample; In: Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No.4, 2001


Burning a Book Before It’s Printed, By Eloquence, Apr 7th, 2002.
About: Levine, Judith, Harmful for Minors, The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,


Actual: A few quotes from a few articles about The US accused priests




Internal Ipce matters


Financial report


Report of the secretary


Report of the web master


Ethics, by Frans Gieles


Documentation Service Lists: December 2001


and June 2002


Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

 In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.

 Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications. 




 This Ipce Newsletter # 13 is made for the few subscribers to the paper edition, and for the other members to have an overview and to prepare the annual meeting. In fact, the news can be found on the “What is new?” page of the Ipce web site on the pages to which that page refers. The web site is updated with many files, far too much to put in any paper edition. This Newsletter can only give a bird’s eye view on a small part of it for those who cannot reach the Internet.

 The first article gives such a bird’s eye view on the ongoing public discussion about the research done by Rind et al. The next articles give a small part of Rind’s most recent research, published at the end of 2001, about the experiences of gay teenage boys, a review of Levine’s book, and an article about the actuality of the accused priests.

 Then follow some articles to prepare the annual Ipce meeting: the annual reports of the treasurer, secretary, and the web master. Last but not least, I try to summarize the ongoing discussion we had about ethics. I try to propose the next statement about ethics.

 These reports have several topics to discuss at the meeting. I mention two of these topics.

 The first one is a negative message: the internal Ipce communication is widely intercepted from the Internet. A Dutch woman who started a foundation with the aim to prevent the emancipation of “pedophiles” has leaded that interception. She has sent our messages to several authorities, groups and journalists. Most receivers did not react, but some of the latter have ‘outed’ members publicly. So we have changed our way of communication, and supposedly we have to change it again.

 The other one is that Ipce gradually has become more known by the public. In some newspapers this is done in a negative way by giving false information about the nature and aims of Ipce. In other newspapers or web sites in a more positive way by mentioning and using our extended library on the Ipce web site.

 We are living in the era of the Internet, in which more people have access to articles with research reports, opinions and arguments, which can give a better understanding of reality and truth about relationships between adults and youth.

 Regrettably, we are also living in an era of hate-mails and other actions against people who try to reach more rationalized and nuanced views on these relationships. The Rind et al. team has been attacked heavily. Prof. Mirkin and Judith Levine are also attacked only because of their opinion. 

 We have to keep our balance in this world nowadays.

 Your secretary,




Financial report  


June 10, 2000 >>>>

June 20, 2001

June 20, 01 >

June 7, 02


Dutch Guilders



















Total Income
















    Newsletters E 11 & 12




    Newsletters E 9 & 10




    Costs for the Meeting 1998, 2000




    Invitations, account & question




    Costs for the web sites




    Other Secretarial costs (porti & postbox)




        [Round off difference Hfl > Euros]




Total Costs
















Expected costs




Provider 12 x 32,40




Telephone costs








Porti & other secr. Costs (more post mail)








Reserve / Emercency / Newsletter








Membership's fees: fact > proposal





Report of the secretary, June 2002

 Ipce has 77 members in 17 countries. 56 Are member of Ipce Meets Online, IMO. 65 members have an e-mail connection, 12 only a post address.


Report of the web master, June 2002

 The public web site

The web site has had several great updates during this year. Ipce has now 842 files on 22.36 MB, connected with 9034 links. The files are on three domains now. Many files had to be replaced because of a lack of room. We have opened a new and paid account to have enough room. We have also some accounts to host web sites and books. The former counter has passed the 100.000 visitors. Since January 28, 2002, the counter is renewed. Since that date until mid-June were 6400 visits of the home page, which is about 50 each day on average.

The web site is mentioned in some articles in newspapers or magazines, mostly in positive sense,

 The internal list and site IMO

It appeared that our mail was intercepted on a great scale by a Dutch women, Ireen van Engelen, who is the chair of a Foundation named “Soelaas”. This foundation has as one of its aims to stop the emancipation of pedophiles. Many messages have been sent to authorities, persons, groups, newspapers and journalists. In The Netherlands, her actions did not give any reaction, but a journalist in the UK, who said to have received daily faxes from Amsterdam, had published about those received messages.

As soon as we knew this, the sending of e-mails has been stopped. Since then, the list, actually a web site, works as a moderated bulletin board, only accessible with a user name and a password. This is done, because I had the opinion that only e-mails to members were intercepted.

However, recently it appeared that the same journalist had access to the web site, thus to all messages. Since then, we have started a pause, introduced a stop and removed the IMO site from the www.
During the meeting I will propose solutions for the problems.



 Frans Gieles

 Several years ago, in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, we have discussed about ethics. We developed four principles or guidelines. Last year, in Berlin, we have token up the thread. Tom presented a lecture, published in the Ipce Newsletter E 12, where is also an introducing article by me. Discussion followed on the IMO List. Let’s now try to make a statement about ethics. 

To refresh the memory: the four principles were seen as good in certain situations, but generally too limited and partly contradictory. The principles speak about avoiding a bad situation, but have no positive goal or a fundament that says what is good. Especially the principle of openness was seen as a debatable one.  

The idea was to maintain the four principles, but see them as thoughts, not as rules, and to put them in a broader frame and to add more thoughts. Here is a try-out or a proposal to such a statement. 

Human rights in intergenerational relationships

 ‘First, do no harm’

 “Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults. In this context, these relationships are to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partner.” (Ipce Mission Statement) 

Human rights are the fundament of ethical ideas about intergenerational relationships. One of these rights is to choose for contacts and relationships with other humans. Contact is necessary for humans and relationships can enrich human life for both partners. This is the basis of ethical thoughts about intergenerational relationships. 

How much intimacy a contact or relationship has is at first a choice of both partners. If they feel that it is good, it is good. This may differ by people and situation. There is only one general rule or principle that counts for every relationship: Do no harm.  

There is more to say. What follows, are no general rules, but guidelines or thoughts, points to take into consideration. The result, an ethical idea about an actual relationship, will differ by people and situation. 

In former years, Ipce Meetings have developed and accepted four guidelines:  

"1. Self-determination:

Children must always have it in his or her own power to regulate their own sexuality, their relationships with others and their own lives.

2. Initiative:

Even in a later stage of the relationship, it is always the children who make the choice to have sex.

3. Freedom:

At any moment within the relationship with an adult, children must have the freedom to withdraw from the relationship. (Dependency in sexual relationships limits their freedom). Love and dedication must be unconditional. Sex is never allowed to be a bargaining tool.

4. Openness:

The child should not have to carry unreasonable secrets. One has to take into consideration how the child lives with its own sexuality. This openness depends a great deal on the quality of the relationship, and the support from the adult(s).

 These guidelines are no commandments on tables of stone. It are guidelines or thoughts to take into consideration. The local mores and customs also play a role, as openness about children's sex lives is not always appreciated. Children often have to be sexual in secret. Homosexuality is for many youngsters a big taboo. This can bring many problems and insecurity. If the sub-culture in which they live is relaxed and strong enough, then children can find support in that environment.


Openness is not always possible and not always wanted. Openness is a typical Western value. Many other cultures have other values. Many youngsters prefer consciously to have their own secrets. Many youngsters make their own choices and do not want to be protected. ‘Don’t treat me as a child’, they say. It is their right to have this freedom. The freedom to say no and the freedom to say yes. There is also a right for privacy.
‘Platonic’ love and relationships may be a solution, but they have also the hidden implication that sex is dirty and taboo.

 Especially young gays and lesbians, but also youngsters who are in a phase of homosexuality, need relationships to explore their orientation and to develop self-knowledge and self-respect. It is their right to have this. They do not deserve rejection. Harm is possible because of a relationship and the reaction of society to it. Harm is also possible by rejection and by not having relationships at all. One should as honestly as possible estimate if any harm is possible. The leading principle will be Do no harm.

 Every person and situation is different. Children change in the course of their development from child to adult. Use your best judgment in any individual case.

Vorige Start Volgende