Download as a ZIPped Word.doc file
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
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
a Book Before It’s Printed, By
Eloquence, Apr 7th, 2002.
Service Lists: December 2001
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.
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
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.
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.
reports have several topics to discuss at the meeting. I mention two of these
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.
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.
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.
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.
have to keep our balance in this world nowadays.
INTERNAL IPCE MATTERS
Report of the secretary, June
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
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.
site is mentioned in some articles in newspapers or magazines, mostly in
internal list and site IMO
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
‘First, do no
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)
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
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
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.
former years, Ipce Meetings have developed and accepted four guidelines:
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.
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.