Notities bij boeken

David L. RIEGEL
"Pedophilia, pejoration, and prejudice: Inquiry by insinuation, argument by accusation"
in: Sexuality & Culture, 2004

"As I and others before me have learned, holding politically incorrect views on the issues involved in what is commonly referred to as “pedophilia” can attract a lot of unfavorable attention. Beyond that, publicly stating or publishing those views frequently generates scathing public criticism from politicians, radical right wing groups, the media, and even from the supposedly open minded and truth-seeking ivory towers of academia. These criticisms sometimes involve the substance of the issues, but are most frequently ad hominem attacks on the character of the targeted individual and the “immorality” of his views."

[Dat is wat er dus gebeurt in een morele paniek. Het is schokkend. En zelfs het woord 'pedofilie' wordt niet eens begrepen.]

"“Pedophilia” (or “paedophilia” if one happens to be under the spell of the Queen’s English), comes from the Greek pais (παίς, child or youth, not gender specific, the combining form is paedo or pedo ) and philia (φιλία, friendly love or affection – it would be eros (ερως) if it meant physical or sexual love) ( Liddell, 1888). So pedophilia is by etymology the non-sexual love of a child or youth – not sexual lust after a minor, as it has been corrupted in today’s usage. Every parent, grandparent, uncle, and aunt is – or at least should be - a pedophile. [mijn nadruk] "

Riegel schetst twee voorbeelden, een van verkrachting van een meisje met geweld en een van een speels erotisch contact tussen een oudere en een jongere jongen met wederzijdse instemming.

"In the eyes of the victimologists, the “child sex abuse industry,” and, regretfully, the law, both of these men are “pedophiles," and both of the scenarios involve a “perpetrator,” a “victim,” and “child sexual abuse.” Both cases would be prosecuted with equal vigor in most - if not all - jurisdictions, and both would result in draconian sentences."

"More than one older boy or man involved in nothing more - and often considerably less - than the second scenario is presently serving a substantial prison term that, apart from questionable societal "wrongfulness," has absolutely no justification in that actual harm caused by the relationship was never demonstrated, only assumed. Evidence from study after study (Bernard, 1985, Eglinton, 1964 , Okami, 1991, Rind et al., 1998, Rossman, 1979, Sandfort, 1987, Sandfort, 1992, Tsang, 1981, Wilson, 1981, etc.) indicates that there is minimal, if any, harm to a boy from his consensual sexual relationships with an older male. So if the boy is harmed, it is most probably from the inappropriate and overblown reactions of parents, teachers, law enforcement personnel, counselors, etc., rather than from the relationship itself." [mijn nadruk]

"Why, then, in direct contradiction of the vast amounts of data that have been gathered, the repeated analyses that have been done, and the large number of papers and books that have been published, does the “victimological” model of CABS [Consensual Age-variant Boyhood Sex] still seem to prevail? And why does the deliberate and ongoing use of pejorative, misleading, and negatively biased terminology (Okami, 1990, Rind & Bauserman, 1993), which serves primarily to buttress victimology, continue unabated? Is it politics intruding into science? Is it simply that victimologists spend more time making louder noises? Have some researchers wrongly generalized a worldview from a limited amount of atypical clinical and prison data? Have those psychologists and sociologists who see through the victimological smoke screen been frightened into silence? Is it the effect of religion, primarily Christianity, in making the arbitrary decision that CABS is absolutely “morally wrong,” in spite of all the evidence that it does little, if any, actual harm? The probability is that it is some combination of all of these." [mijn nadruk]

"I advocate an end to the use of pejorative, prejudiced, and misleading terminology such as “pedophile,” “perpetrator,” “victim,” “abuse,” etc. There are less value laden and more accurate terms, and the only reason to cling to the old ones is to deliberately insert bias and prejudice into scientific investigations or discussions. This is negative advocacy in one of its most virulent forms." [mijn nadruk]

"I advocate that science should be science, and that as such it must be completely separated, isolated, and insulated from religion, politics, and so called “morality.” The search for truth through pure and uncorrupted science encompasses both the noblest aspirations and the highest achievements of mankind, and such science should not in any way be subservient to lesser entities."

"Science is supposed to be a search for truth, but as long as those whose purpose it is to ignore facts and concentrate on maintaining their status quo are in control and can effectively silence any opposition, the search for truth about CABS is not likely to succeed."