Core: noun, the most important part of a thing, the essence; from the Latin cor, meaning heart.

Click for Main Weblog

  Needless Commentary from Small-Town America  

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Fri. 07/11/03 01:06:09 PM
   
         
         
   

Mainstreaming Perversity

First, homosexuality; next, pedophilia.

Timothy J. Dailey writes at Family Research Council:

.... Sexual Deviation and the Academy
A key element of those forces striving to transform our culture and overturn its historic Judeo-Christian sexual norms is the social legitimization of sexual deviancies — which pedophile activist David Thorstad calls "complementary facets of the same dream." This all-encompassing goal of unrestrained sexuality cannot succeed as long as such practices are marginalized, confined to sleazy bookstores in the seedier areas of cities, and subject to societal opprobrium.
The crucial battle, however, is not being fought on the level of the vice squad. Rather, the struggle is being played out in the academic citadels of the land. Given the almost religious authority accorded to scientific disciplines in Western culture, professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and its sister guild, the American Psychological Association, exert enormous influence upon the public perception of sexual behavior.
The "sacred text" of the American Psychiatric Association is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considered the authoritative guide to psychiatric disorders. Evolving views of sexual deviancy found in the DSM have proven to be an influential force for transforming cultural norms of sexual behavior.

A gradual progression away from traditional views can be seen, for example, in the APA’s piecemeal acceptance of homosexuality. The first version of the DSM, appearing in 1952, listed homosexuality in a group of sexual sociopathic personality disorders classed as sexual deviations. A subtle but crucial change appeared in the revised version, DSM II, which called homosexuality a sexual orientation disorder only for those who are disturbed by their condition or wish to change their sexual orientation. According to DSM II, homosexuality was no longer considered to be in itself a psychiatric disorder.
The final step came in 1973, when DSM III no longer referred to homosexuality by itself as a sexual orientation disturbance. Homosexuality was considered a problem only when it was "ego-dystonic," causing unwanted and persistent stress for the individual. Subsequent revisions of the Manual, DSM III-R and DSM IV, make no mention of homosexuality whatsoever.
A similar progression to legitimize sexual aberrance is evident with regard to pedophilia. DSM I and II both classify pedophilia as "sexual deviation." However, in DSM III pedophilia is labeled a "paraphilia" (an aberrant sexual fantasy or behavior), a less pejorative designation than "sexual deviation." DSM III-R, a revision of DSM III, adds a subjective qualification similar to that which appeared with regard to homosexuality: The individual must be "markedly distressed" by his own pedophilic activity to be considered needful of therapy.
The diagnostic criteria in the latest revision, DSM IV, specify that pedophilia is to be considered a paraphilia when the behavior causes "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." The same changes in DSM IV can be seen with regard to sexual sadism, sexual masochism and voyeurism.
The APA’s classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy.
The far-reaching ramifications of the APA’s reclassification of homosexuality have extended beyond medicine and law — where a proliferation of homosexual rights legislation has swept the country — to popular culture, where homosexuality is almost invariably portrayed as a positive and healthy, if misunderstood, lifestyle.
Cracks in the floodgates have been appearing regarding pedophilia as well. Emboldened by the APA’s acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, advocates of adult-child sex are making cautious forays into the scholarly literature. Once again, this move is shrewdly calculated, with the expectation that society in general will follow the lead of the "high priests" of the scientific community.
A significant initial salvo for the acceptance of pedophilia in academia was the publication of what would become a highly controversial study on child sexual abuse in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin. Authored by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, the study — "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" — asserted that the widely held belief that sex between adults and children always causes harm to children "is of questionable scientific validity."
While the authors contend that "the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative effects from their CSA [child sexual abuse] experiences," they nonetheless allow that some experiences result in negative consequences for the victim. And to what are these negative effects attributed? To none other than family environment factors such as "traditionalism" that prevent the child’s parents from lending support to the child engaged in pedophilic activity.
According to the Rind study, the child sexual abuse itself was "relatively unimportant compared with family environment" in causing negative effects. The clear implication is that children would suffer few if any negative effects from pedophilia if only society were more accepting of such behavior.
Adult-child sex, conclude the authors, should not be indiscriminately termed child sexual abuse. "One possible approach," they suggest, "is to focus on the young person’s perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term."
The Rind study was roundly condemned by many and eventually criticized by the American Psychological Association, publisher of Psychological Bulletin. Paul Fink, M.D., former president of the American Psychiatric Association, pointed out that most of the studies discussed by the authors had never undergone rigorous peer review, and that the results were largely based on one study conducted over 40 years ago.
In addition, the majority of the incidents of "child sexual abuse" included in the study consisted of indecent exposure that did not involve physical contact, or sexual advances that were rebuffed by the subject. Thus, in most cases the "sexual abuse" was either comparatively minor or nonexistent. As Dr. Fink observes, "It is as if a study that purports to examine the effects of being shot in the head contained a majority of cases in which the marksman missed. Such research might demonstrate that being shot in the head generally has no serious or lasting effects."
A study by Debra K. Peters and Lillian M. Range found significant differences between contact and non-contact child sexual abuse (distinctions that for statistical purposes the Rind study ignores):
Further, a consistent finding was that women and men whose sexual abuse involved touching were more suicidal, less able to cope, and felt less responsible to their families than nonabused students. Adults whose sexual abuse was exploitative but involved no touch were not significantly different from nonabused adults. The experience of being touched in a sexual way appears to be more damaging than other kinds of unwanted sexual experiences.... [ellipsis in original]
Steven M. Mirin, M.D., medical director for the American Psychiatric Association, stated that his organization "strongly disagrees" with the conclusion of the Rind study "that not all sexual contact between adult and child should be considered abusive." He explained,
[F]rom a psychological perspective, sex between adults and child[ren] is always abusive and exploitative because the adult always holds the power in the relationship and the child does not. Such exploitation destroys the child’s trust that the adults in his or her life will not harm [him or her].
Undeterred by the scholarly panning of the Rind study, the North America Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) — otherwise known as the "the intellectual elite of child molesting" — in a press release touted the study as "good news." Since efforts to legitimize pedophilia can be expected to continue unabated, let us pose a series of questions that address the chief contentions of the advocates of adult-child sex....

I would like to add that our society was set on this course when it became widely accepted that (1) sex is not properly related to procreation, (2) sex is not properly related to marriage, and (3) marriage is not really a life-long exclusive commitment. IOW, when immoral behavior among heterosexual adults became widely accepted.

Nobody is going to stop the continuing, and maybe even acclerated, mainstreaming of perversity without converting our nation to Christ — and without converting "Catholics" to the Catholic faith.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 07/11/03 01:06:09 PM
Categorized as Most Notable & Social/Cultural.

   
         
         

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.

  Needless Commentary from Small-Town America  


The View from the Core, and all original material, © 2002-2004 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.

Cor ad cor loquitur J. H. Newman — “Heart speaks to heart”