Heretic TOC’s first anniversary blog promised something important was on the way. The life-threatening mental anguish of minor-attracted teenagers to which today’s shocking photos draw attention surely measures up to that criterion. This blog has had a strict no photos policy until now, explicitly to avoid any possible association with images of child abuse.
Ironically, it is precisely such abuse that Heretic TOC now feels an urgent need to expose: abuse not by adult molesters or rapists but by two organisations that ought to be helping young people instead of making their lives unbearable. These are the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, two of the most important organisations in the world in the field of mental health. A plague on both their houses for failing to measure up!
The photos tell their own story very powerfully, so I will try to keep this reasonably brief. Showing them is part of a wider effort to draw attention to the present scandalous situation and to put pressure on these organisations to mend their ways. That is why Fight Back recently launched their message into the public arena.
As Fightback says, “both APAs have recently released press releases in response to right wing fundamentalist complaints that the new DSM 5 classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation. The press releases ignore the mental health of people with the diagnosis and instead advocate their prosecution.”
Peter Hooper, occasionally a commentator here, was quick off the mark with his own excellent blog on this theme a couple of days ago, Mistakes can have a very high price. Rather than me reinventing the wheel, you can read his analysis. His website is called Take A Risk NZ.
I will just add that recognising paedophilia as a sexual orientation is a really big deal. The scientists have been moving towards a consensus in recent years that paedophilia is indeed a sexual orientation; the problem lies with the organisations’ politically minded “leadership”, who really amount to a craven followership of whichever lobby they are most scared of offending. The issue is important because there are already laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Paedophiles of any age who stay within the law would benefit hugely if discrimination against them in employment, housing, access to sports and leisure facilities, engagement in community activities, etc., were to be made illegal via logical application of current law to a newly recognised orientation.
Such a development could have a massive impact in lifting the psychological pressure now bearing down on MAPs, and especially on young ones. Those of us who have survived a decade or more of adult life may find the going tough, but at least we have gained some experience of how to get by and even thrive, despite the worst society can throw at us. Without such experience the young are more vulnerable: it can easily appear to them that the future will be utterly, permanently, relentlessly bleak. Being brought under the protection of anti-discrimination laws would reduce depression, suicidality and other manifestations of poor mental health among MAPs so that the young and the rest of us would have less need for therapy. Having said that, the APAs should be working much harder towards delivering better mental health provision than the “treatment” currently meted out, which is often hostile, oppressive and punitive.
As for whether Heretic TOC’s contribution will do any good, yes it can, especially as it is part of a wider effort. Richard Kramer, of B4U-ACT, has been vigorous in his critique of the two APAs in a recent debate at the influential Sexnet scientific and clinical forum, and I have put in my own two penn’orth there as well, and so has one of this blog’s contributors, Peter Loudon – well, at least 10 penn’orth in his case! Additionally, you other heretics here can all do your own bit by tweeting links to the photos and blog info, plus networking in any other way you can think of: Facebook, links on other relevant sites, etc. It will be great if this goes viral.
In the picture it says “Each day 30 to 150 American teens realize…”
Do you have a source how these numbers were calculated?
I assume there is a number for how many gay teenagers daily realize that they are gay and the number was then just divided (e.g. gay people are let’s say 10% of the population, MAPs are let’s say 3.33% so the number for MAPs realizing their attractions would be a third).
Or did they just estimate the number by a mere guess?
It seems very difficult to me to determine how many people would realize something on a single day on avarage, especially since often that’s a long process and not just a moment of insight.
Good questions.
This blog’s source was Fightback:http://fightback385.tumblr.com/
A post at Fightback says this:
About 11,000 children are born in the U.S. every day.
Up to 3% of males are preferentially attracted to younger children, according to DSM 5.
An internet study found 85% of people attracted to children remember first having these feelings when under age 18, and 45% considered suicide (http://b4uact.org/science/survey/01.htm).
Well, 3% of 11,000 is 330. So it would at least be possible to say that every day 330 children who are (or in other words still will be as adults) attracted to prepubescent children (assuming that also 3% of all girls/women are pedophiles).
When we now say that all of them would discover their feelings in one certain year (e.g. when they are 15) we have to divide 330 by 365 which is 0.904.
So 30-150 children seems kind of a little bit exaggerated to me.
If we also include hebephiles and we would have 3-9% of all males. These are at least the numbers according to the German “therapy” project for pedophiles: http://dunkelfeld.uniklinikum-leipzig.de/dunkelfeld.site,postext,hintergrund.html
The project is funded by the state so these numbers seem to be what is the current scientific consensus in Germany.
If we take 9% then we would have 2.712 children discovering every day in America that they are MAPs (assumed their are also 9% of female MAPs and they all discover it in one single year).
According to this meta-analysis 22% of males are more or equally attracted to children (0-13 years): https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf
I don’t if if this study is trustworthy (the author also wrote a German book about pedophilia “Lexikon der Pädophilie-Irrtümer” (which would be “Lexicon of misconceptions about pedophilia”) so like other studies could be biased because of the anti-MAP views of their authors and assume to low numbers this study could be biased in the other direction. Perhaps the author only used studies which reported a high percentage of minor attracted people.
So there just need to be more research to know for sure which numbers are correct.
Anyway, if we assume 22% of males and females would be MAPs then the number of children discovering their feelings would be 6.630.
Even if we’d take 100% we’d only have 30.1370 children per day so the above image has to wrong if my math is correct.
If we say that these children don’t all discover their feeling in one specific year but that some discover it with let’s say 8 and some with 17 then we’d have to divide the numbers not by 365 but by 8*365 (because 17-9=8).
In case of 22% of people being MAPs the result would be 0.829.
The studies about female MAPs are very contadicting but I assume they are less then male MAPs.
If we assume there are 0 female MAPs we still would have 0.829/2=0.414 children (9-17 years).
To sum up, if the calculations and data are correct,at least then every second day a child or teenager in the US (male or female) discovers that he/she is attracted to people under 13 (and that their feelings won’t change towards older people as they become older).
There are 300 million.people living in the US, 7 billion worldwide. That’s 23.3 times more. 0.5*23.3=11.6.
—->Worldwide 11 children discover everyday that they are MAPs.
That may not sound as much but that’s only because this is all about one single event (discovering one’s feeling’s). For people who are attracted to adult the number would be not much higher actually.
It looks as though you have put quite a bit of thought and work into this scrutiny of the original claim, Rainforest. Well done! Such exercises are a very important means of keeping it real. Or as real as the available data allow: estimates on the prevalence of minor attraction, especially, vary enormously, so even the most careful calculations cannot yield much precision.
Clearly Rainforest does not understand mathematics and statistics (I know what I say, I have a PhD in Maths). His division of numbers by 365 or by 8*365 are absurd!
If every day X MAPs are born, and if each MAP discovers his attraction “one day”, then on average, every day X people will discover being MAPs. The fact that the age of dicovery is spread out does not change the result (on average). Suppose a MAP has 1/1000 chance of discovering himself at age Y, 1/1000 at age Y+1 day, … 1/1000 at age Y+999 days, then on a given day you will have 1/1000 of those born Y before, 1/1000 of those born Y+1 day before, … 1/1000 of those born Y+999 days before, so it will add 1000 times X/1000, giving again X.
However, you can subtract from the numbers the percentage corresponding to infant mortality.
You have to think of a source of water with constant output, the water flows through different paths with different lengths and run times, all reaching the sea, then on average the same amount reaches the sea at any time, and unless some percentage evaporates on the path, it is the same amount as the one at the source.
Thanks a lot for that correction. 🙂
I kinda assumed that my math is incorrect (I also had some anaolgy in mind like your with the source of water).
Well, as a MAP teen I just found that interesting and wrote my thoughts about it without putting too much effort in it.
I want to study physics after high school so now I wanna know how to calculate that properly. Can’t be that I can’t even do such simple math which is even for once something more or less applicable to real life.
So I guess where my mistake in thinking was that without noticing it I probably thought of it like if there were only on one single day in the year 11.000 children born and so I spread them among among all the other days of the year (and of 8 more years).
But of course 11.000 a born every day and it doesn’t matter how many days a single year has or at which age they are supposed to discover their feelings because we assume it’s only one single event on one single day and so all the other days, regardless how many there are, become irrelevant.
I hope that’s more or less correct.
So the right calculation would simply be to divide 11.000 by the percentage of pedophiles/MAPs?
Well, probably not. Then every day 330 up to 2420 children (or adults for that matter because the years do not matter) realize they are MAPs (3-22% MAPs, depending on which studies are concerned) if we don’t consider mortality rates. And that’s just the US.
While I would be happy that there are so many MAPs, I rather doubt that these numbers are valid. They just seem way to big.
>I want to study physics after high school so now I wanna know how to calculate that properly.
You are interested, motivated, willing to learn. That’s good. I think it bodes well for your future.
I never expected having to lecture about Maths on H-TOC! ;o)
Let p(Y) be the probability for a MAP to “come out” Y days after birth, we have then Sum-over-all-Y p(Y) = 1. Let b(X) be the number of MAPs born on day X. Then the probabilistic expectation for the number of MAPs “coming out” on day X is Sum-over-all-Y p(Y)*b(X-Y). If b(X) is constant =B, then the expectation becomes equal to B.
Oh, God, you’re beginning to remind me of my big brother: also with a PhD in maths! When I was about 12 and he was 17 (picking up an Open Scholarship to Cambridge a year early) I used to dread him “helping” me with my maths homework. My head would be swimming within seconds!
Having said that, I’d better add that I think your present contribution is very apt and useful. Hope Rainforest agrees.
As someone who has more than enough experience, still ongoing, of the kinds of pseudo-therapy alluded to in the conversation here, I think that we need to realize that the therapists seem to genuinely detest us. The few occasions on which I attempted to have a normal conversation on a level of equality, I was threatened with instant return to prison. Please be under no illusions: whatever their surface gloss of professionalism, these are simply anti-child abuse activists who would happily see the whole bunch of us of any age locked in a gulag for the rest of our lives.
They clearly don’t care about children, as they couldn’t even comprehend my question as to the mental and emotional distress undergone by a pubescent boy realising his sexual orientation as being focused on children, as I went through at age eleven. Their answer was that there are organisations out there who will help such a child; when I pressed them for specifics, they refused to continue the conversation.
Actually, I have come to see that this is one huge weakness in the position of those who hate us, one we should increasingly exploit: what is to be done about these many children? One online discussion on a news website I took part in recently included a man who simply stated that such children should be told to commit suicide. We should highlight this obscenely inhuman attitude, whether it is implicit in the APAs or explicit in the kill-’em-all brigade, and contrast it with the evidence-based and reasoned approach of our cause. Most parents could easily be made to understand that their own son could be minor-attracted, and do they really want that boy to die?
A highly paid psychologist who interviewed me and produced a dismally flawed report was taken aback when I insisted he tell me his view on where minor attraction arises: his answer was that at puberty, I decided not to allow my sexual attraction to age with me but chose to fixate on children. Has anyone else come across this bizarre theory? There is obviously not a shred of evidence to support it, so how could this man believe something on a par with fairies? Let us use our own expertise to refute and educate and have as our goal eventual public acceptance – and nothing less.
You’re right. This attitude really is deeply shocking.
Greetings to Tom O’Carroll and all “heretics” of the twentieth and twenty-first century against the absolutism of the New Inquisition in these times.
This is my answer to both APAs on the issue of stigma against pedophilia:
Both APAsª, instead of placating and be well with the critics and/or opponents (generally right-wing politicians, fundamentalist Christian groups, and some LGBT movements, what seek only criminal procession, social isolation and denial of medical care to childlovers) and public opinion, with character and courage should educate society by distinguishing between pedophilia and pederasty, pedophilia and child sexual abuse, and explain the differences between “sexual orientation,” “sexual interest” and “paraphilic disorder”º and stating that not all pedophiles have a mental disorder, have sex with children or sexually abusing themºº, and yes or yes they have romantic feelings towards minors, instead of continue to defend the APA the mistaken idea that being a MAP is to be a sexual abuser children or those who promote the sexual exploitation of minors are all paedosexualsººº.
All with the purpose of ending the stigma against pedophiliaºººº.
I agree that pedophilia should yes or yes be removed from the “Bible” of the psychiatrists, their removal would bring positive social, medical and legal consecuences, not only for the MAPs, but also for children and the entire society, although a first glance these changes are not noticeable.
Their removal would help to pedophiles not only to receive medical and legal protection in case of not be sex offenders or be mentally disturbed, or not to fall into Minority Isolated Syndromeººººº, but also to make them aware that they not will claim pedophilia as a mental illness if they do not respect the laws of consentºººººº in their respective state or nation.
¿Cognitive distortion? that is a myth.
I do not seek the cure, nor the punishment, but rather prevention and seek acceptance or tolerance, at least.
¿Pedophile sexual orientation is just a mistake, equivalent to a typographical error or omission? I’m very skeptical of that this was just an oversight. I not buy that excuse. The DSM-V has been under consideration for decades.
ª http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/pedophilia-mental.aspx
º http://takearisknz.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/mistakes-can-have-a-very-high-price/
ºº http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html
ººº http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf
ºººº http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19317611.2013.795921#.UqEHiCeFfIY
ººººº http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/98-053r_fog_eng.htm
ººººº http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v17n03_05#.UpKGiCeFfIY
Other sources:
http://www.b4uact.org/ref/Kramer-20101030.pdf
Greetings Alain! I have seen you on Twitter and it is good to see you here.
>….the mistaken idea that being a MAP is to be a sexual abuser children or those who promote the sexual exploitation of minors are all paedosexuals
Perhaps I should add that the term “paedosexual” appears to be used much more in continental Europe than the Anglophone countries. Paedophilia originates in the idea of loving children, a concept which might be thought incompatible with a paedophile being an abuser. Paedosexuality, by contrast, originates in a more morally neutral expression, as sexuality can be expressed in ways that may be considered either good or bad. I have found, though, that in European use paedosexuality is often used among heretics to refer to a form of sexual attraction which is callously indifferent to the feelings of children, or which may even be sadistically abusive. In other words paedosexuality (or, rather, paedosexual behaviour) is abusive and bad whereas paedophilia is benignly intended and paedophilic behaviour may have beneficial outcomes in the right circumstances.
Here, though, Alain, you appear to be using the word paedosexual in a morally neutral way i.e. some paedosexual behaviour may be abusive but not all. However, there is also another possibility. For instance, a person who is sexually attracted only to adults may nevertheless contribute to the sexual exploitation of children by, for example, coercing them into taking part in prostitution to make money for himself. He would not be paedosexual but he would be sexually abusive.
Fortunately, the context usually makes the intended meaning clear, but I think it helps to be aware that our inconsistent terminology creates a potential source of confusion.
I do not say this as a criticism of Alain or anyone else, in fact I would say the opposite: making a distinction between paedophilia and paedosexuality was an intelligent move. It was designed to rescue the word paedophilia, so that it could be restored as the word of choice when referring to sexual love of children. The Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th edition many years ago defined paedophilia as “sexual love directed towards a child”. Unfortunately, though, the word paedophilia, at least in the Anglophone countries, has probably been beyond rescue for the last 30 years. Ideally we would have moved on and invented another word.
I do think things have to be done in stages,i dont think taking the bull by the horns would work.inter generational relationships have always be around and always will.i wonder what the future holds,if there is a break down of the rule of law then these things could happen naturally,with the risk of mob rule of course.and when it comes to sex tourism the media paints women in a different lite,the women are romantic victims cheated by these african men.Are they not doing the same thing taking advantage of a third world economy to get their hands on some young flesh.when us men do it we are evil of the worst kind.why do so many men find asain women attractive,maybe something to do with how small and peitete they are.
“And I guess we’ll just have to disagree that encouraging prosecution and imprisonment for clients who act on their innate drives contributes to suicide.”
Why on earth would you think I disagree with you about that? It makes total sense that it would. But since they take the prosecution and imprisonment as important, then suicide would be an unfortunate side effect, not something they directly encourage.
“So just why do you think suicide is epidemic among sexual minority youth?”
I strongly suspect it is epidemic among pedophiles — though I would like to see some statistics on it. The proportion of men who write to us at Virtuous Pedophiles who considered suicide as teens is astonishing — 70% or more? The reasons include: having a condition that society hates, general emotional fragility of teens, being unable to talk about it or risking rejection if they do, social stigma. Seeing a future inability to have a loving relationship or sexual fulfillment. Now, there is probably something added as teens consider that they would face not just social ostracism but prosecution and imprisonment if they acted on their desires, but I think there’s plenty of reason for despair there anyway.
I think the question here resolves to one of approach towards the APAs (and any other influential bodies).
Is it appropriate to cooperate with them and win small gains (as mentally ill players), or is it appropriate to take an activist stance and storm the barricades.
Based on the apartheid and gay rights experiences in South Africa, I would say definitively that the fastest progress is made when you deploy both tactics and keep the options open as to distancing from one or the other if it backfires.
Arguments about whether or not the APAs wilfully cause suicide in paedophile youth are not meaningful. However, their behaviour can certainly be construed as doing precisely that and that is the activist approach. Let THEM discredit it in the eyes of the 90%.
Arguments about whether or not the APAs help paedophile youth, non offending paedophiles or contact paedophiles are also not meaningful. The evidence is there. They don’t.
I think this argument gets resolved by a declaration about who wants to be in the activist camp, who in the collaborate camp, and who in the back room producing research output. Then each group needs to define their goals. Those goals should probably not include sexual access to minors because of the consequences to both parties to such a relationship.
Obviously neither APA is going to overtly advocate for adolescent boys committing suicide. But if you want to know what an organization is really concerned about you look at what they do (or fail to do), not what they say. (This is the first thing you learn in Real World, 101). I was in a “treatment” program. The only time I seriously contemplated committing suicide was when I was told I had to take it or return to prison. So-called “cognitive-behavioral” therapy in the US is a form of attack therapy and brain-washing. It is profoundly humiliating and does not even achieve its law enforcement goal of reducing recidivism. By failing to oppose such damaging interventions, both APAs show that they are more concerned with catering to a public caught in the throes of a moral panic than with the mental health needs of anyone – adolescent or adult – who has strong intergenerational erotic desires. The poster is entirely accurate. Imagine the inner life of a 16 or 17 year old who finds himself attracted to an eleven year old boy or girl. Of course he likely to contemplate suicide, and in an undetermined number of cases, he undoubtedly succeeds in doing so. If either APA cared about this they would immediately come with two clear messages for the public:
1. No sexual orientation is unnatural.
2. Mutually desired sexual activities, regardless of age, are not INTRINSICALLY damaging.
They might continue to advocate for restraint due to the damage society might inflict. But these two facts would be made public.
Dear Tom,
Please will you send me more information on this? Please will you send me information at how this information was arrived at, so that I can challenge others on it!
Check this story out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html
This should definitely help everyone understand where things have been coming from. My original story had to be done in a hurry.
Ovid, Tom has our guest blog. He said he will post it around 11/22. I look forward to an open and honest dialogue.
Why was my comment not published?
[TOC: It was excellent. I approved it. Or at least, I thought I pressed the Approve button. I’ll check immediately.]
[TOC: My apologies. You will see that I wrote a note under it. Something must have distracted me before I pressed the final button.]
Of possible interest: Sweden (joining Norway and Denmark, if I remember correctly) removed many paraphilias (not paedophilia though) from its disease list in 2008. https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs/dsm-v-revision-project/dsm-v-program-page/item/316-press-release-sweeden-takes-sexual-behaviors-off-their-disease-list.html
That’s another interesting point – that diseases are diseases in some places, but not elsewhere, and that diseases may cease to be diseases by virtue of a Decree for the Ministry of Health. I wish the same could be done for cancer…
Another thing I don’t understand is the DSM-5 use of the word ‘legal’ in its definition:
I can see that the knowledge that what you want to do is illegal can be distressing, but how can the fact of its being legal affect a person’s mental state? They might not even be aware of the illegality, or the law could have been changed or they might move to a country or state where their activities are illegal.
Also, what exactly is a ‘paraphilia’, and are they distinguishing between a ‘paraphilia’ and a ‘paraphilic disorder’? Are homosexuality and heterosexuality paraphilias, or do they imagine that sticking ‘disorder’ after something brings it into their professional ambit?
Is there anyone here who can hold the DSM-5 writers to account?
(Quote from Washington Times article.
I think you are taking psychologists and psychiatrists more seriously than they deserve. In fact, this affair of orientations that are only orientations as long as the majority likes it shows once more that mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists are more like hookers than scientists. It is no coincidence that revolutions have never happened because of psychologists and psychiatrists (who, on the other hand, have adapted their so-called science to suit revolutions time efter time).
Well, wasn’t this great having a sexual orientation for a few days?
But the DSM was always flawed to begin with. Classifying it as “pedophilic disorder” when laws were broken is utterly ridiculous. Last time i checked mental disorders were diagnosed by mental health professionals and not judges and juries.
The part with being in distress and having interpersonal difficulty i can understand somehow. But this can still apply to other sexual orientations can’t it? Homosexuals or even heterosexuals can have interpersonal difficulties of various kinds with their sexual orientation. Maybe they experience their sexual urges as egodystonic. This is all very well possible.
So in my opinion there are either disorders for every sexual orientation or there are just independent disorders which can apply to every orientation. So we call it maybe “egodystonic sexual disorder” or “Impulse control disorder”, whatever seems to be the distinct problem relating to the sexual orientation.
“pedophilic disorder” seems so vague and says absolutely nothing about the precise nature of the individuals problem.
I am with Richard Green on this one. He made a very convincing case in 2002 i think it was. It is sad that he was so ignored.
What else? Ah, yes. I have a little bit to say on all those new therapies for pedophiles coming out of thin air. Don’t get me wrong. There might be very well a need from many pedophile individuals to go through that sort of therapy (which is basically a behavioural therapy to control sexual urges). Some pedophiles seem to have what can be called impulse control disorder, or they fear themselves, they have interpersonal difficulty or otherwise conflicts with their sexual feelings.
But this does not apply everyone of us, does it? I doesn’t. I know it doesn’t because if i sum up all my problems i had as a pedophile, my sexual feelings make up about 5% of it. Maybe i was lucky? I don’t know.
But where on earth could you find a therapy for loneliness or lovesickness?
When i count up all instances of problems i had in my pedophile life it was, when i had to say goodbye to a girl i loved, because they moved away, or the parents forbid any social contact, or the circumstances otherwise prevented us from seeing each other. Those moments caused me most distress and dispair. Not my erotic thoughts i naturally had from time to time. I was in full control of them – afterall i am a rational homo sapiens. I am not alone in this: Many many many pedophile brothers (and very few sisters) report the same problems. Most discussions in forums are about being in love, being alone, coping with social barriers which forbid even shortest social interactions with children. Only a few discussions are about having to restrain sexual desires or feeling out of control or the fear to make a wrong move. This is at least how i perceive it (and i admit i may be biased in this).
The therapy for pedophiles has nothing to offer for most of us, i have to say.
And still the public discourse is about every pedophile apparently being on the “edge” of sexual abuse and in imminent need of therapy to learn how to control themselves sexually.
Do those therapists really have sympathy for pedophiles? I somehow doubt it… not only are the therapies clearly not designed for most of our issues, they also admitted everywhere they could that their upper most priority is to “save children”. So without the prospect of “saving children” or at least pretending to save them, those kind of therapies just wouldn’t exist. Thirdly i cant stand statements like from VirPed or also Cantor – taking the public emotionally hostage. What do i mean? I quote from VirPed.org:
“Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of child sexual abuse by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment.”
Don’t hate us! Or else we abuse children! Yes, we are that unstable and in despair with our sexual faculties.
Is that all we are? A human body with sexual instincts going haywire any minute now?
Our social fate has slightly shifted nowadays. Maybe there are less violent phantasies against us, maybe less people want us locked away forever regardless of what we have done. The new final solution in the pedophile problem seems to be mental and social control. Every pedophile is dangerous, so every pedophile needs therapy and a social net of eyes like an eagle to prevent you from going anywhere near children. Other than that you are allowed to live a happy “free” life. Isn’t that humanistic and heart warming?
I heard from many pedophiles who tried this kind of therapy. It didn’t make them any more happy. It made them more paranoid, more uncertain, they questioned their ability to control themselves, when they were sure they were perfectly able to do so before. But this is exactly the pretext of therapy: “You are a pedophile and you NEED to control yourself”. The alternative hypothesis that the “patient” might already be able to, does not occur to them. Did they ever consider the golem effect (opp. pygmalion effect)? The therapists expectations might be a real and even dangerous game-changer.
And if this wasn’t enogh, i know some of the pedophiles were talked into an outing to their family members, to improve social control… because – yeah, you guessed it – because he is dangerous. But that is not what is said to them. They were told about the benefits of having family helping out in difficult times… which basically translates to multiple sets of eagle eyes distrusting you every step of your way. What did you expect? Some doctors said he is pedophile and he is some kind of therapy. What else would you now think of him, if not, that he is a dangerous medical case with a mental disorder? It destroys trust, freedom and self-confidence. And your dreams of seeing that girl again? Just one more time, only one innocent day of playing hide and seek together…. forget it. You are now a mental patient. At least not in some kind of prison, right? Oh… wait.
[TOC adds: Great stuff. Long, but lots of substance. I feel we should all take notes: there are points here to underscore and keep at the top of our minds.]
“i cant stand statements like from VirPed or also Cantor – taking the public emotionally hostage. What do i mean? I quote from VirPed.org: “Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of child sexual abuse by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment.” Don’t hate us! Or else we abuse children! Yes, we are that unstable and in despair with our sexual faculties.”
Remember we are talking to an audience (the public) large portions of which believe that all pedophiles take pleasure from causing pain to children while we rape them. They don’t give a shit about pedophiles, but they do care about children. It’s a truthful way to try to hold their interest and maybe open their minds just a bit.
We all agree that there are pedophilic men who do bad things to children (because they have poor impulse control, for instance). And we’re mostly agreed that due to iatrogenic harm, it’s important in today’s world to avoid all such relationships. It’s certainly reasonable that therapy might help men to achieve goals that they personally support, like not imposing their sexual desires on unwilling children, or not engaging in seemingly mutual relationships which society will later make the kids regret. Even if it’s 5 pedophiles out of 100 who have impulse control problems, and 1 of those 5 who could be helped to not offend by therapy, a small net benefit to children is what might hook the interest of a member of the public. We certainly didn’t say we think we’re all a danger. There are quotes on our website that contradict that; right on the same page is: “But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever.”
Talking about how great pedophiles are is preaching to some subset of the choir, but quite probably counterproductive to changing any minds in the world at large.
VP’s highest priority is to prevent child sex abuse. 99% of the time in our forum discussions, harm to children is a tie — it’s not in question at all, and since it’s a tie, we are free to apply our secondary goal, which is helping pedophiles lead happier lives. So while that highest goal is rarely relevant to us in day-to-day practice, the times when it is relevant are of immense importance in hoping for the public’s support.
We are quite happy in our group to tell people to ditch their therapist — like one who felt that a man who had fantasies about 17-year-olds in bathing suits was destined to go to prison and must cease. My own therapist asked me if I thought I was in any danger of abusing kids, and when I said no (also consistent with years of knowing me), he suggested I volunteer with children more.
Hi Ethan,
i also read and recognized your and nicks other reply in the other article. The reason i did not respond is because i am still awaiting the guest article, which Nick is preparing. So we’ll better postpone the “meat” of the discussion to this future guest article.
(For the handiness of the argument, and because it is not relevant to this specific issue, i don’t distinguish between child abuse and child-adult-sex like in Rinds model)
Just one thing though. My earlier critical comment had the buzz word “marketing campaign” in it, because that is the gist of how i perceive your project. And i must say, it shines through your comment once again.
You said:
“Remember we are talking to an audience (the public) large portions of which believe that all pedophiles take pleasure from causing pain to children while we rape them. They don’t give a shit about pedophiles, but they do care about children. It’s a truthful way to try to hold their interest and maybe open their minds just a bit.”
Well, it is not a truthful way, is it? By saying that “hating pedophiles makes the abuse worse” you make a horrible emotional appeal.
First i must say that this is an empirical question. How does societal hate on pedophiles influence their decision-making? On your website you stated from the get-go that it increases the risk of child abuse. And i am skeptic about that. Wouldn’t this mean that if pedophiles are more trusted and welcomed, they would refrain from child abuse? Wouldn’t they feel more safe to do it? Wouldn’t they find more opportunities? Wouldn’t they think they might have a case to sell, when trusted so much?
This is not a really clear issue. It remains an empirical question in my opinion.
But you used this statement not as an empirical fact anyways. As you readily admitted, you state this to make an emotional appeal. To “force” people to go easier on us with holding their children as ransom, to be the ultimate victims if any more hate is unleashed on pedophiles.
Which brings me to the next point. Can this kind of charade even work? Pedophiles play the victim card and indirectly threaten with “risk of abuse”, when to much hated by the public. What would society do? Well they would calmly “walk around the tiger” pretending to be nice and harmless, while in reality they suspect a “beast”, which can break out any time you aggravate it too much.
I can’t imagine this would ever work. The more likely outcome is, that pedophiles might be formally treated with respect to some degree – but with an cautious eye and a rigorous net of social control. Your every move is watched and carefully examined – and some people might even see abuse, where it is not. This “tactics” and marketing campaign has a major drawback you see. It does not get rid of all the active preconceptions about pedophiles – if anything, it makes them worse.
Sorry, Tom. A long post again. I can’t help it. 😉
Ovid, Tom has Nick’s guest submission and is deciding when to post it — he’s not waiting for Nick to produce it.
“Marketing campaign” to many of us may have negative connotations, and when it’s getting people to drink Pepsi instead of Coke, I most definitely share that. But there are also fine products that have died because they lacked a good marketing campaign, where there was good information that potential customers did not get. The same can be said of ideas. There are lots of pedophiles who do not want to have sex with children or change society so it is accepted. That’s a fact that deserves to be known.
“Pedophiles play the victim card and indirectly threaten with “risk of abuse”, when too much hated by the public.”
Are you thinking of a “pedophiles’ union” here, where there is some conscious policy voted on by a membership where we agree to stop abusing kids if they hate us less? That seems totally at odds with reality. If it were real, society would be enraged, I suspect. I am thinking of an apolitical pedophile acting according to the forces in his own life. Can he find an understanding friend to talk to? Can he get therapy where he won’t be judged for his thoughts?
“Wouldn’t this mean that if pedophiles are more trusted and welcomed, they would refrain from child abuse? Wouldn’t they feel more safe to do it? Wouldn’t they find more opportunities? Wouldn’t they think they might have a case to sell, when trusted so much?”
It’s worth making something explicit that I have mostly let implicit. We are seeking greater support and acceptance for pedophilic feelings. We are not seeking greater acceptance for pedophilic actions, aka child sex abuse!
I agree that it is an empirical question whether greater acceptance would lead to less child sex abuse. The general model of therapy is that any time a person has a problematic behavior, therapy will help them control it, and pedophilia would be a special case of that. A greater proportion of therapists who actually do sympathize with pedophiles would of course be an entirely welcome parallel change.
Another line of evidence on the empirical question is more indirect, but I think worth considering. Milton Diamond and colleagues have done a bunch of studies (e.g. http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html ) where they look at a given society where porn (including child porn) was very hard to get and then it became very easy to get. Here men get to see video including the sexual activities they dream of, and the kids may appear to be enjoying themselves. If anything would seem to encourage men to act on their pedophilia with children, you might think that was it. But child sex abuse never went up. If anything, it went down. The simplest model is that there are pedophiles who are drawn to having sex with children, know they shouldn’t, but have trouble controlling themselves. Some good child porn leads to satisfying release and an easier time with control. These pedophile abusers may tend to be a different population from “boy lovers” and “girl lovers” — at least as they would like to be perceived.
“But you used this statement not as an empirical fact anyways. As you readily admitted, you state this to make an emotional appeal.”
I don’t think we make an emotional appeal. I’d call it highlighting a fact I think is of great interest to our readers.
“The more likely outcome is, that pedophiles might be formally treated with respect to some degree – but with an cautious eye and a rigorous net of social control. Your every move is watched and carefully examined – and some people might even see abuse, where it is not. This “tactics” and marketing campaign has a major drawback you see. It does not get rid of all the active preconceptions about pedophiles – if anything, it makes them worse.”
Celibate pedophilia becoming accepted would be a slow process. Relatively few pedophiles would “come out” publicly at first. The goal that would allow some brave souls to come out would be some confidence that they won’t be killed by vigilantes. Freedom from surveillance around children would not be at the top of the agenda. But if the world could see ordinary pedophiles doing ordinary things, one can imagine gradual acceptance that in most respects, we’re just ordinary people. Media portrayals of pedophiles today are usually terrible, because for the most part all they have to interview are criminals. I think it would do teen pedophiles a world of good if they could watch documentary film of 20 celibate pedophiles who are normal people leading good lives.
I imagine an iterative process. Repeal a mandated reporter law and (hopefully) see that child sex abuse does not go up. Reduce or eliminate criminal penalties for CP possession and (hopefully) do not observe a huge increase in new child porn production. As I think about it “coming out” may be a fairly late stage in this process.
I certainly can’t think of a more realistic alternative where you first convince society that it’s OK for pedophiles to have sex with kids.
Just as I thought, you are not able to cite anything from either APA that says their patients with pedophilia should be treated with compassion.
“Sure, they believe that adult-child sex is a serious crime, and everything that flows from that.”
Why is the APA even opining about crime, especially in a mere text correction to the DSM? Sexual “orientation” vs. “interest” is not a criminal matter.
Unlike burning down buildings, most adult-child sex does not result in primary harm.
And I guess we’ll just have to disagree that encouraging prosecution and imprisonment for clients who act on their innate drives contributes to suicide. So just why do you think suicide is epidemic among sexual minority youth?
Ok. Until Nicks blogpost gets out, let’s look at your philosophy a little closer.
“Are you thinking of a “pedophiles’ union” here, where there is some conscious policy voted on by a membership where we agree to stop abusing kids if they hate us less? That seems totally at odds with reality. ”
No. I was just stating my impression i got from what is said on your homepage.
Put yourself in the perspective of another “pedophile-hating” person or someone who has an overly paranoid and irrational fear of his children falling prey to pedophiles.
Now he reads: “Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of child sexual abuse by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment.”
To make this easy let’s replace this with a “murder”-scenario. Someone who has a sociopathic disorder and can barely resist killing people.
“Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of murder by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment.”
Or, if this is too crass, replace it with someone who has another condition and he runs risk of hitting children in the face… and he has a homepage, says that societal hate increases the risk of acting on his condition and he needs treatment but is afraid to do seek it because of societal hate and all its ramification.
Also bear in mind that this is said on the homepage of those having the condition in an advocative fashion. This is not coming from scientists in a paper with empirical evidence, stating it as a neutral prevalence across a sample. The ones with the condition THEMSELVES say: “Hate from society makes us do this”.
Now i suspect or at least i hope you will immediately criticize my comparison here for many different reasons. And rightly so. But why?
I leave this bit for you to figure out. And yes: i am going somewhere with this.
Now let me refute your evidence you bring forth that less societal hate against pedophiles (while having the same stance on CSA and CP) will actually reduce CSA.
“The general model of therapy is that any time a person has a problematic behavior, therapy will help them control it, and pedophilia would be a special case of that.”
I don’t see how behavioral therapy is at all part of social acceptance (especially because number one goal is still preventing CSA). I would agree that behavioral therapy does have some considerable effect size (ignoring many possible negative effects on the pedophile individual) in reducing unwanted offenses (Lobotomizing people would also reduce offenses btw.).
But what does this have to do with actual social acceptance? If anything this builds up social PRESSURE against pedophiles to attend therapy, regardless of whether they actually need it or not and regardless of their individual problem.
This kind of so called “social acceptance” reinforces the public belief that we are mentally sick, disordered, dangerous and unstable.
To rate your marketing-campaign here: Bad strategy. I don’t see how the average pedophile benefits from this at all. Cases, where pedophiles are in actual and acute distress and DO suffer from a disorder already DO get treatment and can do this while maintaining anonymity (at least here in germany). They do not need to get pressured from society into it, they KNOW they need it, and it is good that such prima facie treatment exists, even if it is far from perfect. But it is in it’s early stages anyway.
Your next piece of evidence states that legality of child-porn might reduce CSA. I agree. But you might just have said that legality of child-adult-sex reduces real CSA (unconsensual sex), which i would also agree to.
But this has nothing to do with social acceptance of pedophiles and more to do with social acceptance of at least some kinds of child-pornography.
Those things can be distinct. More social acceptance and trust towards pedophiles themselves as human individuals acting in society will actually provide them with more opportunities to be near children, which equates to more risk of CSA.
Any other kind of “acceptance” where pedophiles are pressured into therapy, not trusted near children, viewed as dangerous and mentally disordered is not really something i would personally call “acceptance”. Would you?
So there are another bombs which need to be defused. Some of them are called “moral panic”, “sex hysteria”, “general suspicion” and “iatrogenic harm”.
It doesn’t matter if it is harder to convince society of one thing than another. It is either the right thing or it is not.
I hesitate to respond, because it seems we’re getting no closer to mutual understanding. But here goes:
“Now i suspect or at least i hope you will immediately criticize my comparison here for many different reasons.”
I’m not sure I need to criticize it, if I understand you correctly. If pedophiles have a 9% chance of molesting children, and these (mild?) sociopaths similarly have a 9% chance of murdering someone, then I would say the cases seem comparable.
“I don’t see how behavioral therapy is at all part of social acceptance”
Social acceptance is required at a minimal level so a person dares to seek out therapy. If you think your therapist might report you or would likely view you as an animal, you’re less likely to seek therapy.
“Cases, where pedophiles are in actual and acute distress and DO suffer from a disorder already DO get treatment and can do this while maintaining anonymity (at least here in germany). They do not need to get pressured from society into it, they KNOW they need it, and it is good that such prima facie treatment exists, even if it is far from perfect.”
You are painting a black-and-white case of a pedophile who knows he is going to offend. Things are rarely that clear-cut.
“More social acceptance and trust towards pedophiles themselves as human individuals acting in society will actually provide them with more opportunities to be near children, which equates to more risk of CSA.”
This might pertain to “out” pedophiles, but not to pedophiles as a whole. Closeted pedophiles have no special limits on their access to children. Acceptance might lead to more “out” pedophiles, knowing that they will likely not be trusted, at least in the early stages. Trust would be earned, and it would be a slow process.
“I hesitate to respond, because it seems we’re getting no closer to mutual understanding. ”
Why does this matter? I think it is very beneficial to discuss differences. I’d just like to point out drawbacks in your project.
” If pedophiles have a 9% chance of molesting children, and these (mild?) sociopaths similarly have a 9% chance of murdering someone, then I would say the cases seem comparable. ”
This is not comparable at all. If the general understanding is, that pedophiles have a 9% chance of molesting children, then we are also talking about the socially exaggerated cases of where the pedophile didn’t act any different towards a child then a parent. Maybe he gave a child a mutual kiss on the lips like his father, or he cuddled with a child half naked (like many parents do with their children all the time).
But because he has a different social role and his actions and motiviations are seen differently and sexual hysteric interpretation kicks in, even this is seen as abuse. And of course even some sexual practices are totally harmless.
Most pedophiles actions are hardly any problem at all. Social interpretation of these actions are. THIS is the problem.
The comparison fails because MURDER is a clear-cut defintion, where molestation and sexual abuse can be almost any physical sensual affection, when it happens between a unusual relationship between an adult and a child.
This happened before in a case called “Mario and Lisa”. There was no evidence that ANYTHING lewd or bad happened between them, they just wrote each other love letters and because the parents, including her abusive father, wanted to break them up, they felt that there was no other way but to just run away together. Not a very smart move… but a desperate one.
And the media unrelentingly fantasized about how he most probably is abusing her sexually and many more horrible things. And when a hand-written latter of the girl came to light, where she explains that he had done nothign bad to her and she volunatrily escaped her family, they speculated about how he must have pressured her to do that.
What was the end of story? Well:They found them and after that journalism went dark. Why? Well i think it is obvious, isn’t it? NOTHING happened! If indeed anything happened or if Mario would face conviction or anything they would happily report this in their news specials. But they didn’t…
So. When you talk about how virped is first and foremost about preventing “sexual child abuse” and to help pedophiles seek treatment to “resist” offending… you add NOTHING to the most problematic issue of it all: The public misconceptions about molestation and sexual abuse. They go so mentally overboard, that, even when NOTHING happened, and there is just a slight hint of an adult being in love with a child, major havoc, panic and hysteria ensues and it leaves nothing behind but scorched earth.
“You are painting a black-and-white case of a pedophile who knows he is going to offend. Things are rarely that clear-cut. ”
And with this statement you once again paint pedophiles as unstable individuals whose mental disorder might break out any time resulting in abused children…
This is nothing more than insulting.
“This might pertain to “out” pedophiles, but not to pedophiles as a whole. Closeted pedophiles have no special limits on their access to children.”
Nope. That doesn’t matter. We already have the situation that even all men are under general suspicion if they just like children too much, and spend their free time with them.
In some of our kindergartens, male kindergarten teachers are under very heavy scrutiny. There is a 4-eyes principle, doors to the toilet have to be open, and in day care men are mostly not even entrusted with changing diapers or anything like that.
But this applies to every social fear. If parents find out that their child has made a new adult friend and they understand each other and when this is also introduced to them as a platonic friendship… what do you expect they would think nonetheless? Especially when they heard about Lisa and Mario in the news, where the buzzword sexual abuse was used every other minute, when in fact nothing happened…
The images you include are of course very powerful, and the underlying issue is of course a serious one, and central to the Virtuous Pedophiles message. However, I think they will be counterproductive because their direct allegation is not true. Nothing in the APA position suggests they want pedophiles to commit suicide, and I doubt you could find a statement anywhere saying they do not want the profession to relate to pedophiles with compassion. I think it will be (with some justification) dismissed — and as the work of pedophile zealots.
I was intrigued that it took over six months for the APA’s “sexual orientation” phrase to make the news. It was shocking to me 6 months ago that they would call it that — though pleasantly shocking. So I’m not surprised they backtracked.
There is still good news for us in the APA’s revised position. They may say that they call it “pedophilic disorder” instead of “pedophilia” merely to be consistent with the other paraphilias. But it does still open up a gap. There is a kind of pedophilia that is not a disorder. It’s clear as a bell in the explanation as I presume they intend to revise it: If individuals “report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder.” They’re still saying that if you don’t act on it and it doesn’t bother you too much, it’s not a disorder. It’s a step in the right direction — it will be news to vast swaths of the population.
The news release had to calm fears that the APA was condoning adult-child sex, but given that goal, I thought their tone was moderate: “APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.”
They are keeping the terminology straight and not suggesting the prosecution of pedophiles who do not sexually abuse children. The definitional issue of what qualifies as “sexual abuse and exploitation” is not broached; we may know that they think all adult-child sexual contact is abuse, but it’s not covered. I presume we would all support criminal prosecution of men who forcibly subdue and rape a series of children who are struggling and clearly not consenting.
They support treatments to prevent future acts of abuse, but don’t say that their treatments are limited to such goals.
The APA position is far short of what Virtuous Pedophiles would want, and even farther short of what pro-contact groups would want. But I still think it is progress.
By the way, I thought “a plague on both your houses” was used about two groups who were in clear opposition to each other, which doesn’t seem the case with the two APAs.
>By the way, I thought “a plague on both your houses” was used about two groups who were in clear opposition to each other
Yes, from Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare sometimes used poetic licence. Am I to be denied it? You’re being too prosaic and literal, Ethan!
As for the rest of your message, there is nothing I need dispute, in fact you add some useful clarification, so thanks for that.
“Nothing in the APA position suggests they want pedophiles to commit suicide, and I doubt you could find a statement anywhere saying they do not want the profession to relate to pedophiles with compassion.”
They explicitly suggest they should be imprisoned should they dare to give in to the attraction they experience as essential to their very being. They suggest pedophiles commit suicide by failing to address their mental health needs. They have in the past referred to MAPs with dehumanizing terminology, such as “predators,” as a result of which many come to view their desire for love and intimacy as a horrifying, evil force within them. As a direct result, many decide that suicide is a reasonable option, knowing that the mental health profession shows no concern for their well-being or even their lives.
Now you show me the part where either APA ever says that minor-attracted clients should be treated with compassion.
Sure, they believe that adult-child sex is a serious crime, and everything that flows from that. Most vocal internet pedophiles also seem to believe that at least under today’s circumstances, it is wrong because of iatrogenic harm. For a parallel case, they might treat people with pyromaniac fantasies with compassion, but they won’t defend people who burn down buildings. Your link from lack of compassion (which is real enough, but not due to policy) to encouragement of suicide is very tenuous.
The helping professions all have the fundamental principle that they are there to respect and help their clients, and pedophiles are a special case of that. In practice, of course, it is a terrible situation with great prejudice, but it’s not reflected in any bald policy statements from the APAs.
Tom, I know that the religious right objected to characterizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation, but so did the homosexual community and the liberal media. Ray’s comment was that the APA’s position was a response to objections from the liberal press and the homosexual community (the APA’s natural constituents) not the religious right. With respect to the rest, you know full well how I feel about stigma. I agree that stigma is horrible, I think it’s terrible that so many pedophiles suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts, and I agree that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and that the APA should say so. Where we disagree is that I believe pedophiles would be hated and that many would be depressed and suicidal even if the APA did the right thing and said that pedophilia is a sexual orientation–i.e., I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic.
VP contributes to the stigmatisation.
Tom, obviously I think you are wrong about VP and I look forward to a robust discussion about VP after our guest blog is posted.
Tom, as you know, one of the main purposes of vituous pedophiles is to try to help younger pedophiles adjust to their pedophilia and lead happy lives (more on this in the guest blog I submitted). Also, I am opposed to the APA positions, as expressed on sexnet. But I wonder whether you overstate things. Many of the pedophilc teens who write to us are suicidal or depressed, but the cause seems to be a fear that they are somehow evil as a result of their pedophilic thoughts, that they will hurt a child or end up in prision as a result of acting on those thoughts, or that they wil be unable to have the close loving relationship that can be so important in life. They never mention discrimination. Also, according to Ray Blanchard, who is in the trenches on this, the APA statement was a result of pressure from the homosexual community and the liberal press, not a response to the religous right.
The fact that they go to VP, Nick, suggests that these are people, rather like yourself, who have totally internalised the oppression they face. They know perfectly well that pedophiles are stigmatised and face hostility, it’s just that they feel it is justified, or would be if they were to “do anything”.
One of the complainants was the American Family Association. I haven’t checked, but I imagine they would be closer to “religous right” than the other two categories you mention. However, the likes of Jack Drescher would certainly ensure gay opposition, and the pro-gay “liberal” media (NYT perhaps especially) would doubtless take the same line i.e. not really very liberal, in my view.
Just seen this from Wikipedia:
“The American Family Association is a United States non-profit organization that promotes fundamentalist Christian values. It opposes same-sex marriage, pornography, and abortion.”
As a description, “religious right” sounds bang on target!
This reminds me quite a lot of the ‘It Gets Better’ project. Sex advice columnist Dan Savage started the project out of concern over the high rates of gay youth suicide. It snowballed; soon, groups of people from Pixar, Adobe Systems, General Motors, the Children’s Hospital Boston, the US Senate, the Highland Presbyterian Church, the Salt Lake City Public Library, the Boston Red Sox etc. etc. were making videos in which they talked about their lives as gay men and lesbians and assured kids that things get better. There is a lot of support out there for such projects. There is also general acceptance of the ideas that sexual orientation is not chosen and that ‘conversion therapies’ do not work. Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 study ‘The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual’, which found homosexuals to be no more mentally ill than the population at large, was a big help in the effort to get the APA to take homosexuality off its list of mental illnesses. As you say, we already have plenty of such research on our side. The studies are there. I think this effort has some potential.