Rind Introduction

A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples by Rind Tromovitch & Bauserman was published in the July 1998 edition of Psychological Bulletin, published by the APA. Full text available here. It is commonly referred to as the Rind report or the Rind study . It is the single most important document in existence for the paedophile community because the authors assert that child sexual abuse (CSA) is not harmful to children – particularly to boys.

Paedophiles will attempt to dazzle you with words like 'censored' and 'political persecution' but the flaws in this study defy all academic integrity and intelligence. Due to the significance of this document, we will be covering it in a series. In this introduction we will provide academic background and dispell the lies paedophiles attach to the report. In upcoming posts we will cover the technical flaws in design and contstruction of this meta-analysis.

Academic Background

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a form of research whereby the researcher collects previous studies that have been performed on a particular topic to discover trends across the previous studies. A meta-analysis can add greatly to a body of knowledge assuming that it has been carefully designed so that errors in the previous studies are not carried forward and that errors are not intrinsic to the current study.

Peer Review

The peer review process is meant to assure the validity and integrity of academic publications; it is usually a good indication that the results of publication can be trusted. The process involves a group of colleagues reviewing a researcher's data and stating that the data supports the conclusion made by the author. Unfortunately, this process breaks down somewhat in a meta-analysis. As found by Whitely et al (1994), peers do not ordinarily have access to the original data contained in a meta-analysis. This means that in the case of this meta-analysis, instead of verifying the actual results, peers could only say that everything appeared to be accurate assuming that Rind et al constructed the report with integrity.

Paedophile Arguments

Paedopathetic statement #1

This is the only meta-analysis of it's kind.

Wonder what this is then.....

Jumper, S 1995 ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of CSA to Adult Psychological Adjustment’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 19, pp. 715-728.

Or this.....

Neumann, D, Houskamp, B, Pollock, V & Briere, J 1996 ‘The Long-Term Sequelae of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Women: A Meta-Analytic Review’ Child Maltreatment vol. 1, pp. 6-16.

Or even this.....

Oddone, E & Genuis, M (1996) A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Calgary, Canada.

Rind et al dismissed the previous meta-analyses because they all showed the significant damage caused by CSA.

Paedopathetic statement #2

The report was censored by Congress

Sorry wrong again. The report has not been censored by anyone. In fact the report is freely available through a variety of sources. Congress unanimously denounced the study stating that public policy should not be formed on such flawed, biased findings (House Con. Res. 107). The APA, responsible for the publication of the report, issued a statement to Congress apologizing for the publication full text here. APA CEO Raymond Fowler wrote this in the letter addressed to Tom Delay:

Additionally, concerns have been raised that the aforementioned article and the inferences drawn from it could be viewed as support for pedophilia and used by pedophiles as a legal defense. There is no defense for pedophilia; it is always wrong.

Paedopathetic statement #3

Rind et al are the only unbiased researchers in this field and/or Rind et al are victims of political persecution.

At least one author of this study (Tromovitch) was publishing in Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia long before this study was ever conducted. The stated purpose of the journal is:

to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.

Shortly after the publication of the report, Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman were keynote speakers at "The Other Side Of The Coin" - a paedophile activism conference in the Netherlands which was promoted this way:

expressly to throw light on the more positive side of adult-nonadult sexual contacts.

I contend that it is a self-evident truth that you cannot be an unbiased researcher and an activist in the same field.

This evidence is, on its own merits, enough to discredit anything Rind et al actually concluded. However, we will continue to bring you information on the technical aspects of the report and how the study was specifically designed to 'prove' what Rind et al were determined to conclude. In the next edition, we will cover what Rind et al chose to include/exclude in their data sample.

Facts According to Jay Part 3

Jay Baskins, see HERE, and HERE, and HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #3

The activities of the "pedophile" are always traumatizing and cause great harm to the "victims"

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

In their study "A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse," Rind and Tromovitch (1998) came to the following conclusion: "CSA (child sexual abuse) is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense." This peer reviewed article which appeared in the most prestigious psychological journal in the US was condemned by Congress.

This is what Jay doesn't tell you however:

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.

Hmmm, must've been an oversight on Jay's part.
We will be addressing the Rind et al study shortly. But, it's much too much to include here. So I'll try to summarize a few points as briefly as possible before I get to the TRUE facts.

This was a tremendously (and obviously) flawed study. The authors excluded both those with the most evidence of harm and those which showed the highest incidence of abuse. That's bias. Bias yields unreliable results.... Results which are meant to prove the point you want them to prove. DUH

Consider also the fact that the majority of the incidents of child sexual abuse included in the study consisted of indecent exposure that did not involve physical contact. Thus, in most cases the sexual abuse was either comparatively minor or nonexistent. 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. The Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, (1999).

Next let us consider the following: 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. The experience of being touched in a sexual way appears to be more damaging than other kinds of unwanted sexual experiences. ..

As far as lasting effects go, there are a multitude of online sources that will break it down for you, but for our purposes today I'm going to go to Bill Glaser for the answer.

Imagine a society afflicted by a scourge which struck down a quarter of its daughters and up to one in eight of its sons. Imagine also that this plague, while not immediately fatal, lurked in the bodies and minds of these young children for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its
disastrous long-term effects. Finally, imagine the nature of these effects: life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment.

The scourge that we are speaking of is child sexual abuse. It has accounted for probably more misery and suffering than any of the great plagues of history, including the bubonic plague, tuberculosis and syphilis. Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those of the modern-day epidemics which currently take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart disease and now AIDS.

The harm caused by child sexual abuse is immeasurable.

And then there's Krafft-Ebing who pedovores love to love:

Even the great sexologist, Krafft-Ebing, who labelled Freud’s observations a “fairy-tale”, nonetheless was well aware of the dangerousness and deviousness of child molesters. In his book on sexual perversions, he pointed out the “inexhaustible” range of types of sexual assault committed by child molesters and also emphasised the “monstrosity” of their deeds.