The Evolution of a Factoid

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

We've recently been discussing FACTOIDS,
Statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over
in our Facts According To Jay series. There's several more to come in this series, but for a nice little intermission, I thought it would be nice to show you the evolution of one.

I recently made this comment
pedophiles quoting Ken Lanning, and Hall and Freund, and even Krafft-Ebing for God's sake .... I could see it maybe if one of them misquoted and took out of context one sentence out of a 160 page document to use in their defense. But when ALL the online pedophile community misquote the EXACT SAME THING, then it most certainly is not an individual mistake, it is a concerted effort to mislead and there has to be ONE person responsible at the heart of it. ONE person who started spreading 'quotes' from academia. And now they all repeat the same thing....with confidence, they say things like 'That's a 'FACT'
Now we're going to get to see it in action. A reporter for The Toronto Star covered the STORY of a newly released research paper regarding Pedophilia Diagnosis. Here's what the reporter had to say:
Much to the surprise of researchers involved, a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.
Well that seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Here's some of the things the Girl Chat community had to say....

The Walker proudly proclaims....
Much to the surprise of researchers!
Fabri-Chan replies....
I'm tired of feeling that everyone is stupid and I'm the only one with his head screwd on straight.
Ducky says....
Why don't they just go to a local water park and count how many dudes are there? Simple.
The fact that people who don't molest children are more attracted to them is kind of a hint that most of us aren't child molesters, no? This, coupled with the findings that most molesters aren't pedos makes it pretty obvious what the reality is. Who the hell else would view CP??
called MoonDreamer's statement an absurd point and said... your statement "who the hell else would view CO?" isn't much different than saying "who the hell else would molest children?" Yet it's well proven that the second contention is false.
Demosthenes, the great orator says (among other things).....
The common assertion out there is that viewing child pornography increases the chances of acting up desires, while in here the common assertion is that it reduces the chance. Here they are saying that their research indicates that those who view the CP have a stronger attraction than those who act on that attraction.
Well, um, no, that's not what it says at all. Let's clarify this quickly shalll we?

This study was written by Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard for The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and University of Toronto. The title is Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia and was published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610–615.

Please notice the title of the article. Let's look at the actual article now.

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Clinicians currently rely on three potential sources of information when considering the diagnosis of pedophilia: selfreport, a history of sexual behavior involving children, and psychophysiological assessment. All of these sources have their limitations. Self-report regarding an individual’s sexual interests is the simplest to obtain, but some individuals will deny having pedophilic interests. An individual’s history of sexual offenses, in terms of the number, gender, age, and relatedness of child victims, is informative, but it only approximates the offender’s interests because it is limited to known victims. Psychophysiological assessment methods such as viewing time provide an objective method of assessing sexual interests, but they also can be vulnerable to response suppression.

Our results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. One possible conclusion being, people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults. Another possible explanation for the difference between child pornography offenders and offenders against children is that the child pornography offenders were less likely to attempt to suppress their responses to stimuli depicting children (or were less successful in suppressing such responses).

Our results have implications for both clinical and theoretical work on pedophilia because they suggest that child pornography offending has diagnostic significance and may be particularly helpful in circumstances in which the person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behavior involving children, or in which phallometric test results are unavailable. Whether child pornography offending is associated with a different prognosis than are other indicators of pedophilic interests, such as its relative ability to predict sexual recidivism, remains to be determined

They end with this question:
individuals who collect pornography depicting only girls might be less likely to commit sexual offenses against boys or to show sexual arousal to boys in the laboratory. Given the positive relationships between sexual arousal to children and having multiple child victims, boy victims, and younger child victims (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001; Seto, Murphy, Page, & Ennis, 2003), and other research demonstrating that these same victim characteristics predict subsequent offending (Seto, Harris, Rice, & Barbaree, 2004), one could predict greater pedophilic arousal—and a greater likelihood of subsequent sexual offenses against children—among individuals who possess more child pornography content, pornography depicting boys, and pornography depicting very young children. We are now beginning a research project designed to test this question.

Now, who is responsible for this? Is it the authors of this study? Who said:
The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Or could it be the reporter for The Toronto Times who said:
a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Does that statement look anything at all like what the study actually said? No, no it doesn't. But since the unethical journalist reworded it in her own words, it was much more appealing to the pedo community. In fact her rewording completely changed the meaning of it. Be aware in the future of this name ROBYN DOOLITTLE because you'll be seeing the pedofreaks quoting her endlessly in support of their contention that pedophiles don't commit crimes against children.

They're already in the process of developing a new factoid based upon it. Apparently this is how they came to rely on Joanne DiLorenzo. When she reported that Ken Lanning believed that 90% of molestations were committed by non pedophiles, in direct conflict with what he has written and repeated over the years, the freaks latched onto it, and it has become like a mantra for them. Let's don't let this happen with DooLittle. Ethics in Journalism?
blog comments powered by Disqus