A site to combat the ever growing hysteria over pedophilia

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Home Richard Dawkins on the Pedophilia Delusion Unfair Sex Laws Hate Mongers America's Unjust Sex Laws Day Care Hysteria Hysteria Kills Children


Hysteria ~ "Behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess."

Hysteria can be seen in what terminology is used, which further precipitates the problem literally brainwashing people to become more hysterical.  Such brainwashing terminology in reference to pedophilia includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Referring to anything sexual occurring between an adult and a child as: "sexual abuse."  "Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a legal term rather than a scientific."  "Child sexual abuse is not a syndrome or illness, but rather an event ...Children identified as sexually abused are similar to each other only in that they have been exposed to sexual behavior deemed to be inappropriate or socially unacceptable."  Such language is slanted because it incorporates the value judgment that anything at all sexual between an adult and a child is just de facto "abusive," which of course has no basis in fact -- It's just a declaration made by many people who realize it is wrong, but unfortunately resort to underhanded tactic to try to make their point.  The term is simply not a neutral description as it honestly should be if one is concerned about carrying on an intelligent, objective conversation about the topic.  Just plainly descriptive words should be used such as "sexual contact," "sexual interaction," or even "sensuous contact," etc.

"Survivor of sexual abuse" is the worst, in that it is a doubly loaded expression that can only result in brainwashing.  "Survivor" means by definition "to remain alive, esp. after others in the same situation have died."  Since child-adult sexual encounters rarely end in death for the child "survivor" is hardly appropriate.  Even the word "victim," which is less severe than "survivor," has a preconceived value judgment associated with it, and it is often the adult who is the victim of the child.  One should say "one who has experienced" or other terminology, such as "target," "focus," or even just "participant" or "partner."  "Hurt" is another loaded word.  We often see things like "How could anyone hurt a child like that?"  "Hurt" is most often used to describe a physical injury and only occasionally used in reference to mental anguish.   All of these terms are used by those who over-react, become hysterical, and want to spread that hysteria to others.  In the vast majority of child-adult sexual relationships there is no physical harm done, and emotional distress is inflicted by others who make the child feel ashamed.  In fact, rather than being distressed many of those who were child-partners have very pleasant memories

Another point to take into consideration is complete sexual depravation during childhood actually does cause emotional distress as well as a tendency toward perversions -- because when normal sexual desires can not be fulfilled at a time when the desire is acutely strong, the child or teen begins to explore fetishes for relief of sexual tension.

The primary reason why adult-child sexual relations is wrong is because it's anti-social, and not because it actually traumatizes the child.  Sex is fundamentally about having babies, and adults with child partners most certainly cannot raise a family.  Sex is all about having sex with one's own generation to procreate the species, and the more we get abreast of that reality the more perverted things get even when it comes to consenting adults.  

Certainly if a child is truly taken sexual advantage he or she  could be abused, victimized, hurt, and even be a survivor in some rare cases, but the point here is that none of these things are necessarily true of any and all or even most adult-child sexual interactions -- and should not be declared as such in the language used.    

Compare the two following descriptions:

"I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse.  I was victimized.  Now I'm traumatized; I naturally hate the person, and require years of clinical therapy."

"I participated in adult-child sexual interaction.  I'm now bothered by it, but I certainly don't hate the person.  I feel that it was inappropriate; and I would like to discuss it with someone." 

Which of the above two descriptions would actually be the most accurate and would be less likely to result in either the child or the adult suffering overly adverse consequences? 

However, to be fair, the term "intergenerational sex," which is sometimes use by those attempting to be neutral, is really not appropriate either.  A forty-year -old having sex with a 20-year-old would be intergenerational sex, as would a sixty-year-old having sex with a forty-year-old.  Though even that may raise some eye-brows, it is not the issue here.  What we are concerned with here specifically is: child-adult sex or adolescent-adult sex, and sometimes even child-adolescent sex.

Another area of hysteria presides in just what we view to be sexual molestation.  Molestation means the unwanted (bothersome) or inappropriate sexual advances shown toward someone.  There is nothing in that, that means that absolutely any and all sexually provocative interactions between an adult and a child is molestation or abusive.  There is such a thing as sexual "horseplay" and  "an air of sexuality" that may occur between adults and children in any number of situations that should not be viewed as molestation, harmful or in any way traumatizing.  However, over zealous prosecutors and hysterical parents often want some kind of vengeance for just anything at all that smacks of sexuality between an adult and a child no matter how minor.  This is true fanaticism, and fanatical views and reactions concerning anything constitute a sickness in and of itself that causes incredible amounts of harm in society. 


1.  the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children) 

Idiotic things such as playful pats, tickling, or discussing anything at all sexual with a child can be thought of as sexual molestation now-a-days.  Just as adults can joke around about sexual matters without really being sexually erotic, so too can adults joke and engage in horseplay with children that is in some sense sexual, but not erotic, thus not molestation.  Unfortunately, many teachers and others who work around children are going to jail for the most ridiculous excuses of child molestation imaginable due to the fanatical sickness of what one might call pedophileophobia.  A sex offender used to mean a rapist and not usually much less, perhaps indecent exposure or a voyeur, but now it just anything that could possibly be perceived as having any air of sexuality.  Sex offender registries are busting that the seams, not because there are more criminals, but because of the forever widening definitions of sexual offenses.

Hysteria magnifies things and causes over reactions which often end in tragedy:

On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."

In the article "Day of the dad: pedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?

Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."

Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.

A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.

She stated, "As I grabbed for the shoe, I missed and was shocked to touch what felt like a leg. I pulled the leg upwards." The dead child emerged.

Abby's case may be extreme but it hinges on a question that commonly confronts everyone who interacts with other people's children. Is it possible to touch a child in a non-abusive manner without risking terrible repercussions?

Before moving to this question, however, it is necessary to consider a related issue that arises in almost every discussions of Abby. Is Clive Peachey legally or morally responsible for her death?

For several reasons, I argue that he is not. First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the nursery staff who became her guardians. Abby was in no immediate danger when Peachey saw her and he contacted the police upon later hearing a 'missing child' report.

Arguably, if he had phoned the police immediately, Abby would have been dead long before they arrived. Moreover, by coming forth, Peachey has accepted the damage to his life that comes with the public disgrace of saying "I drove past her."

Important information in judging Peachey is missing. For example, if Peachey has a family, he may have been reluctant to place his reputation or livelihood at risk. He may have balanced possible harm to his own children against helping a stranger's child.

Peachey's fears have precedence on this side of the Atlantic.

Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.

The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.

Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.

Again, Barnaby is an extreme case. But ordinary people make decisions on how to interact with children based on such high profile stories.

The effect on average people in non-extreme situations can be partially gauged through a study conducted by Dr. Heather Piper at Manchester Metropolitan University: "The Problematics of 'Touching' Between Children and Professionals." Piper examined six case-study schools through interviews with teachers, parents and children regarding the propriety of touch.

Commentator Josie Appleton reviewed the study, "Reported cases include the teacher who avoided putting a plaster [bandaid] on a child's scraped leg; nursery staff calling a child's mother every time he needed to go to the toilet; a male gym teacher leaving a girl injured in the hall while he waited for a female colleague."

One school reportedly kept an account of every 'touching incident.' They stated, "We write down a short account and date it and put which staff were present and at what time, we then explain it to the parent and ask them to read and sign it."

Appleton observed that this is more in keeping with "police logs than teaching children."

The last words encapsulate the problem.

Touching a child, even to render medical assistance, has become a potential police matter.

Child abuse must be addressed but it is worse than folly to punish those who help children. Our society is creating Clive Peachey -- decent men who will walk away from a child in need.

Abby Rae died not only from drowning but also from bad politics.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.


A Harmful Message?


New Book on Child Sex Sparks Uproar

By Bryan Robinson




A Harmful Message? New Book on Child Sex Sparks Uproar By Bryan Robinson April 5 - Judith Levine expected her book on child sexuality to stir some controversy, but she never dreamed she would be called an evil accomplice to child molesters.

Though not yet released, Levine's book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, has already attracted angry letters, phone calls and e-mails directed at her and her publisher, University of Minnesota Press.

The book argues that efforts to protect children from sex can do more harm than good, especially when parents and educators are afraid to recognize children as sexual beings.

Sex is a part of growing up for children and teenagers, Levine argues, and not all sexual encounters with adults are necessarily traumatic for minors. This has prompted critics to accuse Levine of endorsing child molestation and sexual abuse.

"My book is not about intergenerational sex," Levine said. "I am not endorsing sex abuse of children. Quite the contrary. It was my hope that the book would allow parents and other adults to talk realistically about issues of kids and sexuality. Instead, there is an effort to suppress the book and stop that conversation."

A 'Cover' for Molesters?

The uproar over Levine's book arises amid the ongoing sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Last week, a reporter for The Minneapolis Star-Tribune quoted the Brooklyn-based author as saying that a sexual relationship between a boy and a priest could "conceivably, absolutely" be positive.

Levine says her quote was misconstrued and that she does not approve sex between authority figures such as parents, priests and teachers and the minors in their charge. However, she argues that teenagers should be given more credit for the choices they make when they become involved in relationships with adults.

Not all minors should be considered "victims" of coercion, especially since an older teenager would have a different take on the relationship than a younger child, Levine says. Citing previous studies, she contends that some teens could have a positive experience and not be traumatized by a sexual relationship with an older person.

"Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons: an older person makes them feel sexy and grown up, protected and special," Levine writes. "Often the sex is better than it would be with a peer who has as little skill as they do. For some teens, a romance with an older person can feel more like salvation than victimization."

Critics of Levine have called Harmful to Minors evil and say that she is endorsing a defense child molesters have used in criminal cases.

"It's the latest academic cover for child molesters," said Robert Knight, executive director of The Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. "Her book endorses child sexuality and says sex is good for children. This could easily be exploited by adults who have sex with children and who claim that it was done in the child's best interests, that they wanted it, and that they enjoyed it."

A Model of Consent

Levine endorses the Netherlands' approach to age-of-consent laws. In 1990, the Dutch parliament made sex between adults and children ages 12 to 16 legal as long as there was mutual consent. The child or the child's parents can bring charges if they believe the minor was coerced into sex.

Levine believes the Dutch law is a "good model" for the United States because it recognizes children as sexual beings who can determine their future while not ignoring the fact that they are weaker than adults and still need legal protection. U.S. consent laws, she says, mistakenly put all minors under one category without recognizing their ability to pursue relationships.

"Legally designating a class of people categorically unable to consent to sexual relations is not the best way to protect children, particularly when 'children' include everyone from birth to eighteen," Levine writes. "Criminal law, which must draw unambiguous lines, is not the proper place to adjudicate family conflicts over youngsters' sexuality. If such laws are to exist, however, they must do what [social psychologist Lynn M.] Phillips suggests about sexual and romantic education: balance the subjective experience and the rights of young people against the responsibility and prerogative of adults to look after their best interests, to 'know better.'"

Knight and other critics of Levine's arguments say that minors cannot make consensual decisions in sexual relationships with adults because they are never in positions of power. The adult is the authority figure because he or she is older and more experienced.

"All child sex is coerced, no matter what the child's state of mind," said Knight. "Adults are always in a state of power and authority. No child can give meaningful consent."

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Hysteria Overshadows Other Messages

Levine says she regrets that the controversy over her book has overshadowed one of its other points - that abstinence-only sex education and a reluctance by parents to recognize their children's sexuality leave youths vulnerable to sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS and to sexual abuse.

"The hysteria surrounding my book is precisely what my book is about," Levine said. "There are some real dangers [facing children] in the world, of course. But we need to look at them realistically and separate the real ones from the exaggerated ones."

Critics agree that children should be informed, but say that parents should be allowed to do it on their own terms.

"I think parents should inform children according to age appropriateness and the emotional maturity of the child," said Knight. "Children should be shielded from sexual details until they are old enough. Let them grow up and find out what are appropriate concepts before they find out about abhorrent concepts. We should be cleaning up our culture and not destroying the innocence of our children."

Officials at University of Minnesota Press expected to come under fire for publishing Levine's book but say they are surprised by the level of uproar. Some critics called for the firing of those at the publishing firm who decided to print Harmful to Children.

State Rep. Tim Pawlenty, majority leader of Minnesota's House of Representatives, has urged University of Minnesota Press officials to stop the release of the book. However, the officials are standing by Levine and hope people remain open to at least hearing the book's arguments.

"We've received a lot of phone calls, e-mail and mail from people expressing concern about book," said Kathryn Grimes, marketing director of University of Minnesota Press. "We just hope that if people keep an open mind and don't turn away from the idea of the book that they'll see it is a breadth of carefully researched documents and scholarly evaluation."

Savaged for Ideas

Levine is not the first to receive severe criticism because of her contrarian views on child sex abuse. Harris Mirkin, political science professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, has said he received hate mail and at least one death threat for his writings on pedophilia and child pornography, in which he questioned whether sexual abuse ruins every child victim's life. Members of Missouri's House of Representatives have called for his firing.

Levine has received support from gay activist and lawyer William Dobbs, who has started a campaign to encourage people to read the book and evaluate her arguments for themselves.

"The attack on the book is such an attempt to push us back to the Middle Ages," said Dobbs. "It seems that anyone who just brings up the idea of this subject has their character savaged."

Hysteria concerning child sex issues, Levine says, sometimes has led to overreaction and false charges filed against alleged abusers. It has also suppressed the discussion of issues that can inform minors and enable them to make informed choices and protect themselves, she says. And the furor surrounding Harmful to Minors, she says, shows that this hysteria - and its potential harm to children - is very real.

"It's too bad people like to suppress the expression of ideas they don't like," she said. "I love the Constitution. I have spent many years defending it. Telling people to de-fund a college university, to burn the book that doesn't seem very democratic."

Others say the danger of Levine's book's message is even more real.

"It is not hysteria to assert that this book will aid and abet child molesters because it gives a pseudo-scientific rationale that can be used by a defense attorney," said Knight. "The Rind study has been cited by defense attorneys in the past. I'm sure this book will be used as well."

Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine is expected to reach bookstores nationwide by May.

review excerpted from:
A Harmful Message?
New Book on Child Sex Sparks Uproar
By Bryan Robinson April 5, 2002


  • Legal Firms ~ Find legal help below
    •  Stuckle and Furguson ~ The False Allegation Law Firm - Located in Texas.
    • Patrick Clancy is your defense expert as a California Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney in cases of false allegations.
    • We are a non-profit organization dedicated to educating professionals and the falsely accused on factual, scientific data regarding child abuse allegations. To that end, we host one of the largest conferences on the topic of false child abuse allegations every 12 to 24  months.