Hi Tipsters!
Stephen Black wrote:
> The current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association
> has an exchange of letters between Rind et al and their critics. It
> seems to me that this is a good example of the level on which the
> debate should take place.
I agree with Stephen that this analytic approach to the merits and problems of
the Rind et. al study is much more productive than the cries of outrage (Doc
Laura) or gleeful flag-waving (NAMBLA) often by those who haven't even read the
study.
Of course, I noted my previous concerns about the study in a prior post. My
primary concern is the very broad definition used in most studies of what
constitutes child sexual abuse and thus the large variance in reported incidence
rates between the studies.
I think the study represents an examination of the effect of pre-adult sexual
exposure which can include child sexual abuse.
> This is in contrast to declaring by fiat
> that abuse is always harmful, and that even to raise the question is
> unthinkable.
Or the opposite - that child sexual abuse has no relationship to later
psychological outcomes or that it is acceptable behavior.
Warm regards,
linda (who's picked up a virus that leaves her queasy, feverish, and feeling very
sorry for herself)
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
