Skip to comments.Studies Suggest There Is No Long-Term Harm on Minors Who Have Sex With Adults (trunc.)
Posted on 09/26/2017 9:08:28 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
A Christian sociologist is sounding the alarm that recent scholarship is suggesting that sex between adults and minors has no long-term damage on the children. And whereas in years past this kind of research would have been roundly condemned publicly, it is now being met with silence.
Writing in the Public Discourse Monday, Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas-Austin and author of Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, noted a disturbing development in both the dissemination and public consumption of research on sex and sexuality.
The Archives of Sexual Behavior journal published in the past year two studies by psychologist Bruce Rind, both of which claim that "minor-adult sex tends not to be reported as a bad experience, as unwanted, or as one with longstanding negative consequences," Regnerus explained.
Nearly two decades ago, Rind wrote in a 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin that the long-term destructive effects of child abuse are overestimated, a claim that both the American Psychological Association and both Houses of Congress rejected publicly.
Today, however, with this newer research "Rind is banking on a more amenable political and scholarly atmosphere in which to conclude comparable things. And from the sound of itor rather, the utter lack of soundhe has gotten his wish. There has been no congressional concern, no APA scrutiny, just silence," Regnerus said.
With that notable lack of professional and government condemnation, the sociologist believes that Rind's scholarship will likely serve to weaken age of consent laws. He predicts that those who hesitate to embrace Rind's conclusions may soon be considered "out of touch, narrow-minded, or worse, hateful" in broader society as has been the case with things that were once considered inconceivable like same-sex marriage and transgender children.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Minors means what?? 6 or 16?
If true, it is only because such encounters are so common that the issues from incest and rape are considered normal.
We get a tortured soul for most of these encounters, and then they vote.
Imagine what party appeals to those who feel they are victims?
Who is this character....need more details.
Color code this article “skeptical.”
That is a good question. Huge difference between a 16 and 20 year old and a 50 and 6 year old.
That is my question.
There are plenty of 15 or 16 year old’s who for all intents and purposes, live the life of an adult, and make most of their own decisions. I would never say the same thing about child in primary school. Let’s not use this notion to justify anything NAMBLA related.
And so it starts...expect to see a flood of this kind of garbage and if you don't like it you're going to be another kind of bigot. I don't know what word they'll use but you'll be against love.
Does a child suddenly become immune from harm by virtue of the age of the sexual partner, then?
Well,... just how young do you want your son to be when he gets popped by the man next door?
18 remains a good number.
Lets not make it open season on our children or youth.
I think the whole goal is to move the number.
I think anyone recognizes that 18 is “ok”.
But can we make it 17?
Can we make it 16?
They want it to be 8, in case people don’t know.
They will accept any step in that direction. Because if anyone agrees that 15 is OK, then it just makes it easier to get to 14. And so it goes.
exactly... is a 22 yr old woman “harming” a 16 yer old kid? I say no...
now 22 and 6... WHOLE different game.
Was this written by a pedophile?
But take that argument forward, what about pedophiles? Is that a choice? I don't think so, either they are made that through abuse or they are born with deviant urges but either way they are mentally "off" and they didn't consciously decide to go that way. So can you judge them? Well, I say hell yeah and with prejudice if they act on those deviant urges in any way (porn, abuse, whatever). But by the logic already established for gays, of course not! In fact, to NOT defend pedophiles would actually undermine the "born that way so can't judge" zeitgeist they've created. Gays must, eventually, actively support and defend pedophiles.
It was only a matter of time.
This is nonsense.
I’m telling you, legalized pedophilia is the next great Liberal cause.
well if my son is 6 and being “popped” by a dude that’s just a wee bit different that if he is 16 and being “popped” by an 18 yr old chick...
Of course there is long-term harm to minors. And sometimes, there is long-term harm to the abusers when they are righteously homicided by angry fathers or prison inmates. :-)
I had (a Leftist now gone from my life) a friend who had a PhD in Developmental Psychology. She told me that there wasn’t indication of later trauma for children who were sexually abused. I told her that the researchers were crazy. She did admit that it was only one study. The Psychiatrists and psychologists normalized homosexuality back in the 70’s when, I suspect, lots of gays decided to go into those fields. They have been defining sexual deviance upwards for decades. Yes, pedophilia will be the next ‘issue’ that Leftists will feel an affinity toward and will try to say ‘it’s not their fault’. Our society and culture will be/already is suffering for the political correctness that the Left inflicts quiting ‘experts’ in these studies.
>>It was only a matter of time.
I’ve been watching it coming in studies for several years. There is no question in my mind that there is an intention to normalize child/adult sex. I would have once thought that impossible, but the slippery slope seems to just grow slipperier. I’m not sure where people just put their foot down through the ice and stop this cold. Trump is the only time I’ve ever had hope that society could resist the extreme left positions.