Arguments about sexual abuse of children, homosexuality,
academic freedom, censorship, and the stability of family
life -- among other topics -- have swirled around the research
paper published two years ago in Psychological Bulletin, one
of more than 40 journals published by the American Psychological
Association.
The controversy reached Congress, where a resolution against
the paper was introduced, and moved radio psychologist "Doctor
Laura" Schlessinger to launch a series of attacks on the paper.
Now it is the subject of a major conflict within the psychology
profession itself.
As its unsensational title suggests, "A Meta-Analytic Examination
of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College
Samples," by Bruce Rind of Temple University and two associates,
analyzed 59 different studies of subjects who had sexual experiences
of one sort or another with adults when they were children
or adolescents.
Their findings, though definitely against the grain of mainstream
thinking on the subject, could not be called shocking. The
paper merely reported that such experiences didn't always
have traumatic long-term effects. Some people -- particularly
adolescent males -- remember them as positive.
The authors claimed that several factors -- age and sex of
the child, specific nature of the sexual experience (exhibitionism,
masturbation, intercourse, etc.), whether the subject willingly
took part, whether the adult involved was a family member
-- accounted for the great range of psychological consequences
observed.
Further, they held, it makes no sense to lump the incestuous
rape of a nine-year-old girl in the same psychological category
as a relationship between an adolescent boy and an older man.
Their conclusion? Not every instance of adult-child sex is
necessarily the "special destroyer of adult mental health"
that many workers in the field -- and the media -- assume.
Such experiences do not doom a child to grow up mentally disturbed.
However cautious, the article's dissent enraged a number
of people. The Family Research Council, an organization that
defends "the traditional family unit and the Judeo-Christian
value system" blasted the work as a veiled defense of adult
predators.
"Dr. Laura" attacked the article in her radio broadcasts,
charging that it was part of an attempt by the APA to "quietly
redefine pedophilia like it did homosexuality."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and four Republican Congressmen
sponsored a resolution criticizing the APA's decision to publish
the paper.
That provoked a response from the APA, whose chief executive
officer wrote DeLay saying the article was "inconsistent with
APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare and
protection issues."
He also said the organization was taking steps -- including
an independent re-evaluation of the study -- which he called
"unprecedented in the association's history of scholarly publishing."
That, in turn, provoked a counter-response by psychologist
Scott O. Lilienfeld of Emory University, who wrote an article
criticizing the critics. It used the Rind article as a prime
example of what happens "when social science and politics
collide."
The APA, he said, had simply caved in to political pressure.
Lilienfeld's article was accepted by another APA journal,
American Psychologist, and set for publication in June. Then
the journal's editor announced that it was not accepted after
all, and suggested that the author either submit it to some
other publication or revise it without referring to the Rind
study.
So we now have a whole herd of arguments -- not just about
the impacts of child-adult sex experiences, but about whether
the APA should have published the Rind article or then apologized
for publishing it, or should have published the Lilienfeld
article.
None of these arguments has been resolved. The only concrete
step so far is that Lilienfeld has reportedly resigned from
the APA. And the only clear conclusion to be drawn from it
is that adult-child sex is too hot a subject for academic
publications.
