Our discussion of the notorious Rind et al meta-analytic study of the effects of child sexual abuse has been paralleled by a similar discussion on another list I belong to. I thought I'd re-post here two recent items I thought were of particular interest from that list. The first is an insightful editorial by Carol Tavris. The other is a reply by Rind et al to their critics, which I'll send as a separate post. -Stephen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [The politics of sex abuse] Los Angeles Times, 7/19/99 By Carol Tavris I guess I should be reassured to know that Congress disapproves of pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children. On July 12, the House voted unanimously to denounce a study that the resolution's sponsor, Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), called "the emancipation proclamation of pedophiles." In a stunning display of scientific illiteracy and moral posturing, Congress misunderstood the message, so they condemned the messenger. What got Congress riled was an article published last year in the journal Psychological Bulletin, which is to behavioral science what the Journal of the American Medical Association is to medicine. Articles must pass rigorous peer review, during which they are scrutinized for their methods, statistics and conclusions. The authors of the article -- Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman -- statistically analyzed 59 studies, involving more than 37,000 men and women, on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on college students. (A previous paper reviewed studies of more than 12,000 adults in the general population.) The findings, reported with meticulous detail and caution, are astonishing. The researchers found no overall link between childhood sexual abuse and later emotional disorders or unusual psychological problems in adulthood. Of course, some experiences, such as rape by a father, are more devastating than others, such as seeing a flasher in an alley. But the children most harmed by sexual abuse are those from terrible family environments, where abuse is one of many awful things they have to endure. Perhaps the researchers' most inflammatory finding, however, was that not all experiences of child-adult sexual contact have equally emotional consequences nor can they be lumped together as "abuse." Being molested at the age of 5 is not comparable to choosing to have sex at 15. Indeed, the researchers found that two thirds of males who, as children or teenagers, had had sexual experiences with adults did not react negatively. Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them? Shouldn't we be pleased to get more evidence of the heartening resilience of children? And "more" evidence it is, for abundant research now shows that most people, over time, cope successfully with adversity-even war. Many not only survive, but find meaning and strength in the experience, discovering psychological resources they did not know they had. But the fact that many people survive life's losses and cruelties is surely no endorsement of child abuse, rape, or war. A criminal act is still a criminal act, even if the victim eventually recovers. If I get over having been mugged, it's still illegal for someone to mug me, and if I recover from rape, my recovery should offer no mercy for rapists. If a child eventually recovers from molestation by an adult, pedophilia is still illegal and wrong. Moreover, the fact that many people recover on their own says nothing about the importance of promoting interventions that help those who cannot. The article by Rind and his colleagues, however, has upset two powerful constituencies: religious fundamentalists and other conservatives who think this research endorses pedophilia and homosexuality, and psychotherapists who believe that all sexual experiences in childhood inevitably cause lifelong psychological harm. These groups learned about the research last December, when the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH, posted an attack on the paper on their Web site. NARTH endorses the long-discredited psychoanalytic notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that it is a result of seduction in childhood by an adult. Thus NARTH was exercised by the study's findings that most boys are not traumatized for life by experiences with older men (or women) and that these experiences do not "turn them" into homosexuals. NARTH's indictment of the article was picked up by right-wing magazines, organizations and radio talk-show hosts, notably Laura Schlessinger. They in turn contacted allies in Congress, and soon the study was being used as evidence of the liberal agenda to put a pedophile in every home, promote homosexuality and undermine "family values." The conservatives found further support from a group of clinicians who still maintain that childhood sexual abuse causes "multiple personality disorder" and "repressed memories." These ideas have been as discredited by research as the belief that homosexuality is a mental illness or a chosen "lifestyle," but their promulgators cannot let them go. These clinicians want to kill the Rind study because they fear that it will be used to support malpractice claims against their fellow therapists. And, like their right-wing allies, they claim the article will be used to protect pedophiles in court. But all scientific research, on any subject, can be used wisely or stupidly. For clinicians to use the "exoneration of pedophiles" argument to try to suppress this article's important findings, and to smear the article's authors by impugning their scholarship and motives, is particularly reprehensible. They should know better. The Bible can be used wisely or stupidly, too. And so the American Psychological Association (the journal's publisher) has been under constant attack by the Christian Coalition, Republican congressmen, panicked citizens, radio talk-show hosts and a consortium of clinicians that reads like a "Who's Who" in the multiple personality disorder and repressed-memories business. The APA has responded that future articles on sensitive subjects will be more carefully considered for their "public policy implications" and that the article would be re-reviewed by independent scholars. It assured Congress that "the sexual abuse of children is a criminal act that is reprehensible in any context." These placatory gestures are understandable given the ferocity of the attacks. But the APA missed its chance to educate the public and Congress about the scientific method, the purpose of peer review, and the absolute necessity of protecting the right of its scientists to publish unpopular findings. Researchers cannot function if they have to censor themselves according to potential public outcry or are silenced by social pressure, harassment, or political posturing from those who misunderstand or disapprove of their results. On emotionally sensitive topics such as sex, children and trauma, we need all the clear-headed information we can get. We need to understand what makes most people resilient, and how to help those who are not. We need to understand a whole lot more about sexuality, including children's sexuality. Congress and clinicians may feel a spasm of righteousness by condemning scientific findings they dislike. But their actions will do no more to reduce the actual abuse of children than posting the Ten Commandments in schools will improve children's morality. ###
