[Moderated Thread] CFLarsen's and SteveGrenard's Pedophilia Thread

[CFLarsen]

...snip...

I am not saying that John Money is a paedophile. But clearly he favors paedophilia as normal, acceptable, and even therapeutically justifiable.

Where does he do that? Please provide evidence.

We have gone through this over and over again right now to the pro paedophilia argument that acceptability rather than criminalization leads to better jobs for children. Since paedophiles may be married, have their own children, be college grads, have postgrad degrees and exist in every walk of life there is no occupational or institutional profile that precludes any organization from hiring one or more of them. Unless convicted of a crime and documented there is also no reason for any university or college to dismiss one either if they are tenured and exercising their right to academic freedom a la Ward Churchill or Sammy Aliaran.

Irrelevant to whether the evidence exist.

When the reviewer of the reference book answers me regarding the term.

I am not interested in what people tell you. I am interested in seeing it for myself.

Somehow I predict this will not be sufficient for you but since this book is not online in its entirety it will have to do.

No, it is not sufficient. Of course it isn't.

It is a code term for a particular type of affectionate stimulation where the skin senses are concerned. It is disingenous of you to quote "skin senses" only and not the entire term "affectionate stimulation of skin senses" which imparts its true meaning in this context This affectionate stimulation as suggested by Money is not self applied but he suggests removing a young child from their parents home and turning that child over to strangers who will apply affectionate stimulation. How utterly disgusting do you want to make this?

I want to see that the definition covers what you claimed.

I have done exactly that. In a review we have no reason to believe is inaccurate and which was embraced by Prometheus and placed on their website this is precisely what is stated.

You are not telling the truth. You have not been able to provide evidence that Money is advocating petting of a child in a manner that constitutes pedophilia.

Ergo I have provided precisely that with documented evidence.

You are not telling the truth. You have not been able to provide evidence that Prometheus condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

You have provided nothing except that you disagree with the (true) meaning of certain terminology. Either prove me wrong or accept the facts and evidence as presented. In the days ahead if this thread lasts that long we can go forward and discuss those Prometheus books which justify and condone bestiality and sado-masochism as acceptable, normal behaviors as well. And after that we can deal with their apparent fascination with porn stars and prostitutes and x-rated videos. This can be a whole new thread.

It is not for others to prove you wrong. It is up to you to prove your own claims. You have not been able to do this.

Kaspar Hauser - Psychosocial Dwarfism in response to your bickering for I don't know, the third, fourth or how many times now?

There is absolutely no evidence that the book condone, justify and glorify pedophilia.

See also the excerpt from Vern Bullough's vita above with Prometheus book titles, a few pedophiliac, which should be self-evident.

It isn't. Please point out those books.

Again you are appealing to authority. Was John Money a member of the staff of this clinic? Is he a psychiatrist? Does this clinic's staff happen to agree with Money's thesis that pedophilia is not only not harmful but should be used as therapy? Or was John Money allied with the sexologists at Northridge founded by Vern Bullough?

Why don't you read what is posted? Post #234.

And the questions:

Where do you see that Prometheus condones pedophilia in that "blurb"?

Where is your evidence that "skin senses" is a "code term used in the scientific study of pedophilia"?

If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.

If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them. Agree?

You have not been able to back up your claim with evidence. Your claim is unfounded. Your claim is baseless. Agree?

Why do you think a baseless claim carries any weight on a forum for skepticism? Why should we even consider your claim, if you are not able to back it up with evidence?

Do you think it would be a good idea to do your homework and have your evidence ready, before you post your accusations?

Can you please point to Paedika's own list of editors, instead of relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly has a very biased view on this?

Who draw those moral and ethic lines? You? If so, what do you base your decision on? Who gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?

and it’s reasonable to assume that someone who works for it for ten years would also be pro-pedophilia.

Wrong.

There is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field.

We agree on something.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It’s been established that this journal is pro-pedophilia, and it’s reasonable to assume that someone who works for it for ten years would also be pro-pedophilia. Logically, the next question would be to ask what that means for CSICOP and the skeptical movement?

In my opinion, the answer is that it means nothing at all. There is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field.

We got side tracked on Paidika which was important but not central to the broader issue.

And you may very well be correct Mycroft. If in fact Bullough ex Paidika vrs Bullough ex Prometheus vrs Bullough just happening to be an appointed CSICOP fellow I would agree with you and never would have brought this up. However, there is an interlocking directorate at a much higher level than Bullough between CSICOP and Prometheus Books which cannot be overlooked.Evidence of this appears below in the preface to the following on-line opinion piece published by CICAP:

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101001.htm

I am not trying to smear CSICOP by any means, and if you step back and set that notion aside for a moment you will see that I am calling into question the fact that Prometheus publishes not only many respectable titles including excellent books by Shermer and Randi but has set aside a significant portion of its resources for a list of sexually orieneted titles which in many cases seem to have no true academic purpose or if so, a trivial academic purpose designed to disguise their baser purposes.

 

[CFLarsen]

We got side tracked on Paidika which was important but not central to the broader issue.

And you may very well be correct Mycroft. If in fact Bullough ex Paidika vrs Bullough ex Prometheus vrs Bullough just happening to be an appointed CSICOP fellow I would agree with you and never would have brought this up. However, there is an interlocking directorate at a much higher level than Bullough between CSICOP and Prometheus Books which cannot be overlooked.Evidence of this appears below in the preface to the following on-line opinion piece published by CICAP:

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101001.htm

I am not trying to smear CSICOP by any means, and if you step back and set that notion aside for a moment you will see that I am calling into question the fact that Prometheus publishes not only many respectable titles including excellent books by Shermer and Randi but has set aside a significant portion of its resources for a list of sexually orieneted titles which in many cases seem to have no true academic purpose or if so, a trivial academic purpose designed to disguise their baser purposes.

You are not telling the truth when you claim you don't smear CSICOP:

If you think some of the above titles sound harmless and irrelevant to my contentions, visit their website and read the blurbs. The Horseman, for example, is the autobiography of someone who has found pleasure in having intercourse with a horse. If you can stomach any of this stuff, feel free.
However the mere fact that Prometheus, which is also known as a fearless publisher of the Randi books and other psi deunking tomes, finds it necessary to enter this quagmire (and you really have to read the blurbs and peruse some of these titles in person to make you puke totally) sector of publishing is simply one which reflects the pwersonal interests of a small select group of people involved with CSICOP, JREF, THE S>A> and Prometheus. Including a former SUNY Buffalo Professor of Biology (who is no longer there and has moved to California to teach young minds there) who is an active member of the Dutch paedophilia and kiddie porn organization Paedika.
Source

Now it is a free country and publication of such material is not
strictly illegal even though the catalogue reviews some types of
pornography, posession of which would be illegal. However a closer
look at the relatrionship between CSICOP, a non-profit charitable
organization, its presence on the SUNY Buffalo campus and its
relationship with Prometheus whose headquarters are immediately
behind CSICOP's on the same campus leads one to conclude, as Bill
Reilly would complain, that the taxpayor's of the state of New York
are footing the bill for subsidizing and renting to Prometheus and
CSICOP. And if one looks at the list of CSICOP fellows on the front
inside cover of their magazine one will find the name Vern Bullough.
I will not say anything about Prof Bullough except that he is now a
Prof of History at Cal State in Northridge but was formerly a
Professor of Biology at SUNY Buffalo and an editor at Prometheus.
Searching Vern L. Bullough's name on the web may startle you.
Source: Yahoo Group: TheProving (sign up may be needed)

But what I may not have mentioned, and this has nothing to do with religion, is that the cult of secular humanism is embraced by the leadership of CSICOP such as Paul Kurtz and he goes to great lengths to prosletyize their tenets. But I still do not see their relationship to debunking Uri Geller or re-assesing scientific procedures designed to provide evidence supporting Geller's claims. That's whats weird.
Source

Pyrrho: That's not what the organization you listed says it does. In its mission statement it justifies its activities on the basis of frequency of belief. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Answer: Get a life. Really. You are not familiar nor have you ever OBVIOUSLY read a single journal of theirs or their affiliates so you have no idea whatsoever what they do. You are arguing from a blurb which is tantamount to arguing from ignorance in your case. What these people are saying is that these claims occur with great frequency (they do not even put a number on that frequency in the blurb but we can research that ourselves from Gallup polls) and that this frequency justifies a concerted effort to investigate them. Geez pyrrho, if they did not occur with such frequency, what do you think your beloved JREF would be doing right now? Discussing lace making? If there were NO claims of psi or paranormal phenomena, you me, JREF, and the PA etc would not exist. Randi would be doing card tricks somewhere. Er, two paranormal or psi incidents a year in the U.S. doesn't justify the infrastructure created to deal with it: CSICOP and all its affiliates, JREF, The Skeptic Society and all the open minded, truly scientific based organizations that also study and investigate the phenomena. Nor would a legal defense fund at JREF or CSICOP be necessary when Randi or Ed Dittus or Paul Kurtz gets sued for overstepping their bounds and calling someone a nasty name (ad hominem) without the evidence to back it up to a legal certainty.
Source

So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write.
He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia.
Source

And provide evidence of your claims and answer the questions.

(Fixed tag)

 

[Mycroft]

Many of these questions have already been addressed.

If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them. Agree?

It is possible to criticize legal activity.

If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.

It is possible to legally promote illegal activity. Here is another legal journal that promotes illegal activity.

You have not been able to back up your claim with evidence. Your claim is unfounded. Your claim is baseless. Agree?

I think at this point you need to be more specific about what claim is unfounded. Clearly the claims about Paedika are very well founded.

Why do you think a baseless claim carries any weight on a forum for skepticism? Why should we even consider your claim, if you are not able to back it up with evidence?

Steve Grenard has been forthcoming with his reasons for his opinions and has brought to light issues of worth.

Do you think it would be a good idea to do your homework and have your evidence ready, before you post your accusations?

This really seems to border on a personal attack. Steve Grenard may come to conclusions you disagree with, and his evidence may not be enough to convince you, but he has clearly done his homework.

Can you please point to Paedika's own list of editors, instead of relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly has a very biased view on this?

I think it’s quite possible the evidence you demand may not be available. Or if it is and you believe it will refute something said, perhaps you should be the one to spend your energies finding it.

Who draw those moral and ethic lines? You? If so, what do you base your decision on? Who gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?

I think we all agree that pedophilia is wrong and don’t need to get into a philosophical discussion on how we came to agree it’s wrong. This question really seems like just a way of attacking the messenger when the issue we should be dealing with is the message.

 

[Checkmite]

Now, to be completely fair here, it's unclear exactly what "affectionate stimulation of the skin senses" means. It's kind of nebulous. A pedophile could certainly use the term to refer to molestation, for instance, or to "justify" molestation; but the author himself could really be meaning something as innocent as hugging, or tickling, or tousling hair every once in a while. I'm sure most would agree that parents who don't touch their kids except when they're smacking them or something like that really don't have the "parenting" thing together.

 

[Mycroft]

We got side tracked on Paidika which was important but not central to the broader issue.

And you may very well be correct Mycroft. If in fact Bullough ex Paidika vrs Bullough ex Prometheus vrs Bullough just happening to be an appointed CSICOP fellow I would agree with you and never would have brought this up. However, there is an interlocking directorate at a much higher level than Bullough between CSICOP and Prometheus Books which cannot be overlooked.Evidence of this appears below in the preface to the following on-line opinion piece published by CICAP:

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101001.htm

I am not trying to smear CSICOP by any means, and if you step back and set that notion aside for a moment you will see that I am calling into question the fact that Prometheus publishes not only many respectable titles including excellent books by Shermer and Randi but has set aside a significant portion of its resources for a list of sexually orieneted titles which in many cases seem to have no true academic purpose or if so, a trivial academic purpose designed to disguise their baser purposes.

I don't see what you see in this article, it looks to me like another paranoid rant about who controls the media.

Which incidentally was the topic of one of our book-club books:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/forumdisplay.php?f=49

 

[CFLarsen]

Now, to be completely fair here, it's unclear exactly what "affectionate stimulation of the skin senses" means. It's kind of nebulous. A pedophile could certainly use the term to refer to molestation, for instance, or to "justify" molestation; but the author himself could really be meaning something as innocent as hugging, or tickling, or tousling hair every once in a while. I'm sure most would agree that parents who don't touch their kids except when they're smacking them or something like that really don't have the "parenting" thing together.

When you consider that the book is about the Kaspar Hauser syndrome, it is making a mockery out of those kids who suffer from lack of human contact from their parents to claim that the author really is advocating pedophilia.

No argument seems too low, when it comes to attacking skeptics.

 

[Mycroft]

You are not telling the truth when you claim you don't smear CSICOP:

And provide evidence of your claims and answer the questions.

(Fixed tag)

Larsen I don't believe that Steve having a disagreement with you in the past necessarily means that he is wrong now.

Further, I actually have checked out Steve's on-line history, and through reading forum messages (like the ones you quote) going back years, I get the impression he's someone who was very interested in paranormal phenomena, but who has grown more skeptical over the years largely through contact with the JREF and other skeptical promoting organizations.

We all grow and change, Larsen. What someone said back in 2002 may not represent what they believe today.

 

[Mycroft]

When you consider that the book is about the Kaspar Hauser syndrome, it is making a mockery out of those kids who suffer from lack of human contact from their parents to claim that the author really is advocating pedophilia.

No argument seems too low, when it comes to attacking skeptics.

Please don't poison the well. If he's wrong, it should be simple to find counter-evidence. For example, this listing on Amazon makes it seem unlikely this book promotes pedophilia:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975754X/104-3418406-0688756?v=glance&n=283155

 

[CFLarsen]

Please don't poison the well. If he's wrong, it should be simple to find counter-evidence. For example, this listing on Amazon makes it seem unlikely this book promotes pedophilia:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975754X/104-3418406-0688756?v=glance&n=283155

It is solely up to Steve to provide evidence of his claims.

 

[Checkmite]

Oddly enough, I'm largely familiar with the curious case of Kaspar Hauser; I fail, however, to understand any connection beyond name to this "Kaspar Hauser Syndrome".

 

[CFLarsen]

Oddly enough, I'm largely familiar with the curious case of Kaspar Hauser; I fail, however, to understand any connection beyond name to this "Kaspar Hauser Syndrome".

Kids deprived of human contact, to the point where they start developing serious psychological problems.

I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning behind using that as an excuse to accuse the author of advocating pedophilia.

 

[Checkmite]

Kids deprived of human contact, to the point where they start developing serious psychological problems.

So it is a term used to describe what used to be called "feral children"? Feral children just sounds so much better.

 

[Almo]

This was his choice, as is his homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a choice, how do we explain the gay gerbil I had? I personally don't think gerbils have a large enough conciousness to make this kind of choice.

The other male gerbils didn't like it at all. They never attacked the gay one, but they weren't very friendly to him.

I don't know enough about the subject to say that homosexuality is never a choice. But given my experience with the gerbils, I'd say that at least sometimes, it isn't.

 

[Luke T.]

Money and Berlin were founders of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins, which he, McHugh, headed.

This correspondence raises some troubling questions, not only about McHugh and his colleague Fred Berlin, but also about the real intentions of the U.S. bishops and the high-profile personalities they recruited to lead their National Review Board.

After several letters, in which Dr. Reisman cited numerous examples of McHugh’s written support for the work of both Money and Berlin, McHugh declined to provide any substantive evidence that he disagreed with the controversial and ethically problematic methods of treating sex offenders.

"I would especially have liked to have heard Dr. McHugh repudiate the clinic’s stated policy of not reporting ongoing sex abuse of children by sex offenders in ‘treatment’ at Johns Hopkins," Dr. Reisman told The Wanderer in a May 7 telephone interview.

The clinic at Johns Hopkins was eventually forced to change its policy in the 1990s after pressure from Maryland legislators and the attorney general, "but this does not bespeak a trustworthy therapeutic environment for people who sexually abuse children," said Reisman.

http://www.thewandererpress.com/a5-15-03.htm

 

[Luke T.]

"If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way."
~ John Money, Professor Emeritus of Medical Psychology, Johns Hopkins University, in an interview in Paidika, Spring, 1991.

Copyright © NAMBLA, 2003. All rights reserved.

http://216.220.97.17/money1.htm

That's a NAMBLA link.


ETA:

PAIDIKA articles:


— Vol 2., No. 3, Spring 1991. “Interview: John Money,” by Erik Pederson

http://gideon.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1201&department=CWA

ETAA:

Issue 7

Interview: John Money

http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/jour/Paidika.html

 

[Luke T.]

As psychiatry becomes detached from its foundations, we hear more opinions such as these--expressed by world-renowned, Professor Emeritus (Johns Hopkins U.) sexologist Dr. John Money:

"If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutualthen I would not call it pathological in any way"

http://www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/narth_text.htm

 

[Luke T.]

I am sure that you are familiar with Johns Hopkins University Hospital. Money stayed there for 55 years as a professor. Hardly the place that would hire someone who promotes pedophilia, hm?

The University of Arizona has a professor who promotes After Death Communication...

 

[CFLarsen]

The University of Arizona has a professor who promotes After Death Communication...

That's true. But, while controversial, it doesn't attract as much public attention as a pedophile professor.

You think the media would not have sniffed this a long time ago? That's one hell of a story, isn't it?

 

[Luke T.]

It looks to me when reading this parody written by Johns Hopkins staff, that they were aware of John Money's "unorthodox" views on sexology.

But we weren't interested in the predictable. Instead, we set out to find people with a special interest, axe to grind, or unconventional perspective that, with a big stretch of the imagination, could be their ticket to public office.

John Money
U.S. Surgeon General
Credentials: Professor emeritus of medical psychology and pediatrics. For almost 50 years, Money has studied the science of sexology. His numerous books include Reinterpreting the Unspeakable (Continuum, 1994), on how to do a sexological investigation, and he is noted for the eye catching titles of some of his papers and talks, including a speech delivered at Hopkins in 1993 titled "Honk if You Masturbate."
[Partial transcript of a Senate hearing, held July 1, 1997, on the establishment of a controversial new branch of the National Institutes of Health, to be called the Institute on Sexological Health]

Senator McGillacuddy: Dr. Money, will you please explain to us the purpose of your proposed National Institute on Sexological Health.

Dr. Money: The institute would pave the way for necessary data to be gathered on sexology, or the science of sex.

There's a difference between sexology and sexosophy, my word for the moral and legal philosophy of sex. But society often gets the two confused. For example, it is the belief and practice in many schools and communities that providing sex information turns children into sex fiends, but science does not support that notion. Many doctrines of sexosophy have absolutely no scientific testing. We have to get the data.

Senator Small: Specifically, just what is it that scientists at this institute will study?

Dr. Money: The new National Institute on Sexological Health will study many things such as what treatment works best for sexological disorders. But it will first devote attention to what promotes sexual health in children. What is the role of sexual rehearsal play in normal childhood? What is the outcome of punishing children for masturbating or for "rehearsing" sex with a friend? People who study young animals report that sexual rehearsal play is widespread. Young monkeys, for example, attempt a mounting position. At first they don't get it right, and over time, they get it sorted out. But if you rear animals deprived of the opportunity to rehearse sex, they don't develop properly. If we are brutal and punish children for normal behavioral development, perhaps we will produce brutal--or at least, maladjusted--adults.

Senator Reed: Frankly, Dr. Money, I find what you are proposing reprehensible and immoral. It sounds to me like you are saying we should devote tax dollars to studying masturbation in children.

Dr. Money: More than study it, Senator. We really ought to rehabilitate masturbation as good for you. In the era of AIDS, masturbation may be the one way of achieving truly safe sex.

Senator McGillacuddy: Dr. Money, you've never been one to mince words. Do you propose that our textbooks should contain vulgar, explicit language?

Dr. Money: We can be delicate, but we need to be explicit. We have come to talk in euphemisms, especially in sex education in schools. We're incredibly evasive.

Senator Reed angrily leaves the Senate chamber in order to activate phone banks for a public uprising of moral outrage.

Senator McGillacuddy: So what will your institute do to straighten out the mixed messages? What do you think is the "right" message?

Dr. Money: Before we can answer that question, it would be wise to gather facts and figures on kids who were educated under a variety of sex attitudes. For example, Sweden has a history of being out in the open in teaching about sex. In contrast, here, things are mentioned without mentioning them. We could compare the different outcomes in Sweden versus the United States versus maybe Japan. Instead of just guessing, we'd be on firm ground.