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

[Darat]

Please note this thread should be considered a moderated thread as per this warning:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1754034#post1754034

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[CFLarsen]

I missed where this was established. Can you point it out to me?

Edited to add: fount it back a few pages. It say he finds he doesn't find pedophilia pathological, and should be kept to fantasies.

Doe that look as if Bullough is glorifying, condoning or justifying pedophilia?

Show a few abstracts that show Paedika does publish finding which are counter to there stated purpose, or one from Bullough that is counter to it, and I would agree.

Edited to add: Show me articles from Paedika that support Bullough's point of view (that paedophila should remain limited to fantasy) and I would relent on the criticism, as it would evidence that his perhaps trying to put this more moderate viewpoint into the journal.

I don't know if Bullough even published in Paedika.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Doe that look as if Bullough is glorifying, condoning or justifying pedophilia?

It doesn't.

I don't know if Bullough even published in Paedika.

Just show that an article by anyone concluded that pedophilia should not be practiced, and I it will lend credence to the "scholarly journal" argument. Even if it is a small minority of arguments it would lend itself to idea that Bullough was bringing this view-point to the journal.

 

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't.
Just show that an article by anyone concluded that pedophilia should not be practiced, and I it will lend credence to the "scholarly journal" argument. Even if it is a small minority of arguments it would lend itself to idea that Bullough was bringing this view-point to the journal.

Since he was there for, what, 10 years, he surely was bringing his view-point to the journal.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Since he was there for, what, 10 years, he surely was bringing his view-point to the journal.

And we are trying to establish what his view point was, with more evidence that just a right up. Note that in the same post we have a write-up that call Paedika a scholarly journal, but we have evidence leaning away from that at the moment.

 

[CFLarsen]

And we are trying to establish what his view point was, with more evidence that just a right up. Note that in the same post we have a write-up that call Paedika a scholarly journal, but we have evidence leaning away from that at the moment.

We know what his view point was.

 

[Luke T.]

OK now we know that this journal's intent and reason for existance is to promote peadaphilia how does this fact fit in with SteveGrenard claim that "...Prometheus' publishing program that includes books that glorify and condone pedophilia, bestiality and other degeneracies..."?

All I have cared about is what I pointed out in posts 59 through 62 of this topic.

Post 62:

So am I following the thread correctly? There is a pedophilia-friendly, if not "pro pedophilia", journal. At one time, a Professor Bullough was a consulting editor of that journal. This same Professor Bullough was also a CSICOP Fellow.

I think extraordinary evidence has been presented which has overcome the extraordinary obstinance in accepting that Paedika is a pro-pedophilia publication.

As for Bullough's role as a board member, I can just see him writing to one of these freaks,

Dear Hubert,

As per the many editorial meetings and correspondence we at Paedika have had on this matter, your persistent use of "man/boy love" is nothing less than catty. We resolved this issue months ago, and decided the term should be hyphenated as "man-boy love", as you well know. I have therefore edited your scholarly submission "How Deep In The Ass of a 10 Year Old Can You Safely Go?" accordingly.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Darat: Originally Posted by Darat :
OK now we know that this journal's intent and reason for existance is to promote peadaphilia how does this fact fit in with SteveGrenard claim that "...Prometheus' publishing program that includes books that glorify and condone pedophilia, bestiality and other degeneracies..."?

Prometheus's publishing program in this arena is beyond paedophilia and the Paidika link through their sex books editor Vern Bullough represents a part of the thesis. Other books include bestiality and sado-masochism as well as outright support for the porn industry and prostitution. Nothing illegal about this and I have consistently said that in my posts on that matter but that doesn't mean I as a individual have to agree that this subject matter is appropriate for a scholarly publishing company and one so closely allied with CSICOP. But oh well. It has earned me the various names I have been called by a member of this forum.

If you would like the book titles on the other degeneracies you can easily find them yourself by revisiting the Prometheus book listing elsewhere herein or on their website. Or if you request I will do this work for you.

I have given an example wherein the late John Money, who has published several titles with Prometheus, not only was condoning paedophilia but in his professional capacity was recommending it as a form of therapy to prevent developing children from having arrested mental development. He further states that not performing certain behaviors on young children would delay or halt
their maturity and put them at risk of arrested mental development. What's more he clearly recommends that children who are not receiving affectionate stimulation of the skin senses be removed from their parental homes and placed in foster care by adults who will do this.

You nor Claus have to agree but my interpretation of Money's statements wrapped in the respectability of a 30 child clinical study is a form of condoning paedophilia raised to a new and bizarre level of justification.

I have managed to find out why Professor Bullough may have been given a CSICOP Fellow position. Apparently his wife and himself have published a few items on therapeutic touch and that would seem to justify it. The absence of prominent skeptics such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, Alan Alda, Penn, Teller and even the late Carl Sagan (when he was alive) from this roster cause me, however, to question its total
legitimacy.That's just my two cents.

 

[CFLarsen]

Darat: Originally Posted by Darat [qimg]http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif[/qimg]:
OK now we know that this journal's intent and reason for existance is to promote peadaphilia how does this fact fit in with SteveGrenard claim that "...Prometheus' publishing program that includes books that glorify and condone pedophilia, bestiality and other degeneracies..."?

Prometheus's publishing program in this arena is beyond paedophilia and includes bestiality and sado-masochism as well as outright support for the porn industry and prostitution. Nothing illegal about this and I have consistently said that in my posts on that matter but that doesn't mean I as a individual have to agree that this subject matter is appropriate for a scholarly publishing company so closely allied with CSICOP.

If you would like the book titles on the other degeneracies you can easily find them yourself by revisiting the Prometheus book listing elsewhere herein or on their website. Or if you request I will do this work for you.

I have given an example wherein the late John Money, who has published several titles with Prometheus, not only was condoning paedophilia but in his professional capacity was recommending it as a form of therapy to prevent developing children from having arrested mental development. He further states that not performing certain behaviors on young children would delay their maturity and put them at risk of arrested mental development. What's more he clearly recommends that children who are not receiving affectionate stimulation of the skin senses be removed from their parental homes and placed in foster care by adults who will do this.

You nor Claus have to agree but my interpretation of Money's statements wrapped in the respectability of a 30 child clinical study is a form of paedophilia raised to a new and bizarre level of justification.

This has nothing to do with Prometheus' publishing program.

Can you name the books from Prometheus that glorify, condone and justify pedophilia, yes or no?

I have managed to find out why Professor Bullough may have been given a CSICOP Fellow position. Apparently his wife and himself have published a few items on therapeutic touch and that would seem to justify it. The
absence of prominent skeptics such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, Alan Alda, Penn, Teller and even the late Carl Sagan (when he was alive)
from this roster cause me, however, to question its total legitimacy.
That's just my two cents.

Pure speculation.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I am afraid I did. Kaspar Hauser-Psychosocial Dwarfism by John Money.

These subject matters have everything to do with a significant part of their publishing program for the simple reason they have published this material.

I do not speculate with my own personal values or ethics. I know what they are.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am afraid I did. Kaspar Hauser-Psychosocial Dwarfism by John Money.

These subject matters have everything to do with a significant part of their publishing program for the simple reason they have published this material.

I do not speculate with my own personal values or ethics. I know what they are.

How does the book justify, glorify and condone pedophilia?

 

[SteveGrenard]

...DR:snip... I have stated the reason above.

As for Prometheus' Publishing "Program", and Vern Bullough, the following is from Bullough's Vita, Part I, April 2006:

OTHER BOOKS WHICH I HAVE EDITED IN MY PROMETHEUS SERIES:
Robert Baker and Frederick Elliston. Philosophy and Sex.
Philip Cauthery and Andrew Stanway, The Complete Guide to Sexual Fulfillment.
David Copp and Susan Wendell. Pornography and Censorship.
Marsh a Dorman and Diane Klein. How to Stay Two When Baby Makes Three.
Mark Futterman, Dancing Naked in the Material World
Sol Gordon. Seduction Lines Heard 'Round the World.
Doris B. Hammond. My Parents Never Had Sex.
Richard Y. Handy. Male Sexuality and the Challenge of Healing Impotence
Jon Huer. Art, Beauty, and Pornography.
Lester Kirkendall and Arthur E. Gravatt. Marriage and Family in the Year 2020.
Gerald Larue, Sex and the Bible.
C.K. Li, D. J. West, and T. P. Woodhouse, Sexual Encouters with Adults
Mark Matthews, The Horseman
John Money, Destroying Angel.
John Money, Lovemaps.
John Money, Venuses Penuses: Sexology, Sexosophy and Exigency Theory.
John Money, Armed Robbery Orgasm
John Money and Margaret Lamacz. Vandalized Love Maps
Ira Reiss, An End to Shame.
Patrick Riley, The X Rated Videotape Star Index, 1994.
Robert Rimmer and Patrick Riley, The X Rated Videotpe Guide IV
"Sir" John, The Q Letters: True Stories of Sadomasochism
Richard Taylor, Having Love Affairs.
Anthony Walsh and Grace J. Walsh, Vive la Difference
John Wright, Survival Strategies for Couples
Russell Vannoy. Sex Without Love.

Clearly by the choice of his own words Bullough considers this "his series" which he did for Prometheus books: "OTHER BOOKS WHICH I HAVE EDITED IN MY PROMETHEUS SERIES:"

 

[CFLarsen]

...DR: snip... I have stated the reason above.

Let's see what you have said about this book:

"He shows how children from abusive environments can be effectively treated by a move to a new home and affectionate stimulation of the skin senses. Data collected on more than thirty modern cases of the Kaspar Hauser syndrome are presented to support Money's arguments."

edited to add: this quote is from Prometheus' website entry for the book:
Kaspar Hauser - Psychosocial Dwarfism.



The author is advocating petting of a child in what most people would consider an inappropriate manner in order to prevent them from having arrested mental development of Kaspar Hauser syndrome in the book of the same name by John Money for Prometheus. "Skin senses" is a code term used in the "scientific study" of paedophilia. In this case the author wants a child removed from their non-petting parents home which he characterizes as abusive and placed with strangers who will perform this therapy.


I hope this one example suffices to meet the demand for an example of a Prometheus title that condones this behavior. The author is not only condoning paedophilia, he is pushing it to judges, social workers and child care workers as a form of therapy for children with arrested mental development.

Sarcasm: I am sure there is no shortage of paedophiles willing to share their homes with a child in need of this therapy.

Despite several requests to do so, you still have not been able to provide evidence that "Skin senses" is a code term used in the "scientific study" of paedophilia.

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

Ergo: You have not been able to provide evidence that Prmoetheus condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Ergo: Your claim is false.

As for Prometheus' Publishing "Program", and Vern Bullough, the following is from Bullough's Vita, Part I, April 2006:

Do any of these books condone, justify and glorify pedophilia? If not, why bring it up?

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

For many years, endocrinologists and psychiatrists have been fascinated by children with 'psychosocial dwarfism' whose growth in stature is impaired, often to a dramatic degree, consequent to serious abuse or neglect. John Money has contributed several important papers to the scientific literature on the subject, and his experience of diagnosing and treating children with this condition must be as great as that of anyone in the world. He is professor of medical psychology and professor of paediatrics emeritus at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital and the founder of the Psychohormonal Research Unit.

Review of the book

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?

You will not find a squawk about Money's purported advocacy for pedophiliac treatment in the review, though. That's odd, don't you think?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Are you appealing to authority? If so, so will I. I have asked someone with the following volume to quell your bickering by defining the code words used in the Kaspar review. In the meantime ruminate on this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a10fb962ef4.htm


Let's not go to the tenured argument and academic freedom. Money could have been there a hundred years and it would hardly matter if he had unorthodox or objectionnable points of view about using affectionate stimulation of the skin senses to "treat" a problem that very well could have been due to an iodine deficiency in the gestating mom or a myriad of genetic reasons unknown in Kaspar Hauser's time. The mere fact that he framed his argument using a case hundreds of years old is absurd in light of what modern medicine knows about mental retardation today.

 

[Jocko]

Steve,



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?

John Hopkins University Hospital is not an expert in identifying pedophiliacs or their defenders. This is called an appeal to authority ...snip...

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you appealing to authority?

Nope. I am pointing out that it is inconceivable that such an esteemed hospital would hire a pedophile.

If so, so will I. I have asked someone with the following volume to quell your bickering by defining the code words used in the Kaspar review.

In the meantime ruminate on this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a10fb962ef4.htm

I'm not interested in ruminating. I am only interested in your evidence. When is that forthcoming?

Let's not go to the tenured argument and academic freedom. Money could have been there a hundred years and it would hardly matter if he had unorthodox or objectionnable points of view about using affectionate stimulation of the skin senses to "treat" a problem that very well could have been due to an iodine deficiency in the gestating mom or a myriad of genetic reasons unknown in Kaspar Hauser's time. The mere fact that he framed his argument using a case hundreds of years old is absurd in light of what modern medicine knows about mental retardation today.

Despite several requests to do so, you still have not been able to provide evidence that "Skin senses" is a code term used in the "scientific study" of paedophilia.

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

Ergo: You have not been able to provide evidence that Prometheus condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Ergo: Your claim is false.

Do any of the books you listed in post#232 condone, justify and glorify pedophilia? If not, why bring it up?

John Hopkins University Hospital is not an expert in identifying pedophiliacs or their defenders.

Wrong.

Johns Hopkins University Hospital has a Sexual Disorders Clinic, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, where they also deal with pedophilia.

Its founder, Fred Berlin, is an expert on the subject.

More here

I check, Jocko.

 

[Checkmite]

But if we cast doubt on CSICOP for having a scientist, demonstrably is not a pedophile, offering his knowledge, are we any better than Creationists who want to obliterate the research they don't like?

Careful. Until yesterday, Paidika was "demonstrably" a scholarly, unbiased "history of record" scientific journal.

Bullough, right now, is not "demonstrably" anything but someone who happens to have joined the staff of a now demonstrably pro-pedophilic newspaper close to its inception and remained on board for a decade.

 

[SteveGrenard]

...snip...

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

I'm not interested in ruminating. I am only interested in your evidence. When is that forthcoming?

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

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.

Despite several requests to do so, you still have not been able to provide evidence that "Skin senses" is a code term used in the "scientific study" of paedophilia.

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?

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

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.

Ergo: You have not been able to provide evidence that Prometheus condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Ergo I have provided precisely that with documented evidence. 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.

Ergo: Your claim is false.

Do any of the books you listed in post#232 condone, justify and glorify pedophilia? If not, why bring it up?

Kaspar Hauser - Psychosocial Dwarfism in response to your bickering for I don't know, the third, fourth or how many times now? See also the excerpt from Vern Bullough's vita above with Prometheus book titles, a few pedophiliac, which should be self-evident.

Wrong.

Johns Hopkins University Hospital has a Sexual Disorders Clinic, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, where they also deal with pedophilia.

Its founder, Fred Berlin, is an expert on the subject.

More here

I check, Jocko.

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?

 

[Mycroft]

Well, for me...yeah, so fast.

My point was to show the journal had a pro-pedophilia agenda. I showed that. My point was never "do they have the right to" and I don't want to turn this thread into a debate over a non-existing argument. In fact, my work is done here. This was a very distasteful topic but at least some new information was brought to light.

Good point. Somehow the discussion has shifted from a critical examination of what Paedika is to a discussion of if it has a right to be what it is.

I don't think anyone here has argued this publication should be shut down. That's way beyond our scope.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to clear my computer's cache before someone sees my browser's history and wonders what the hell I was doing.

Lol!

I see huge problems here. Since when do politicians decide what is good science or not? This is no different than Creationism being put on equal terms with Evolution by the politicians.

I think I agree with Larsen here. It is very troubling that science is decided –any science- should be decided by a vote in congress. However, this still goes way outside the scope of this discussion here.

Let's not compromise academic freedom because it deals with a subject we feel very uneasy about.

This discussion here in this thread isn’t about academic freedom. We’re all for that.

Ergo: You have not been able to provide evidence that Prometheus condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Ergo: Your claim is false.

Logically that is not sound.

Stepping aside for a moment from the specific Issue of wether SG did providen enough evidence or not, in general terms if a person does not bring sufficient evidence to prove his hypothesis, that makes his hypothesis not proven, which is very different from false.

Yes. I am asking Steve, because he constantly tries to make it look as it skeptics (CSICOP/Prometheus) condone pedophilia.

And this is where further discussion needs to go.

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.