Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 4.

Table 1 at left says that 49% of all recent cyberporn abusers were “parents” of the child. Certainly pornography in the home means that those adults in the home have a higher probability of sexual assault of children under their care.

Therefore this 2004, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children chart pointing.

However, when looking at “rotten research” we need to always ask if an ideological vision is slanting what the researchers say. So, what is a “parent” in our justice department statistics? Knowing full well the bias against biological parents as caretakers of their children, I queried John Rabun, NCMEC COO to find out if that bias held in the “parental” abusers cited above. I am reprinting Mr. Rabun’s December 18, 2004 email to me:

Judith,

Parent is a term of law that has to do with who has legal rights and responsibilities to/for a minor. Most times that is the biological parent but more and more it’s the person who has been awarded care of the minor by a Family/Juvenile Court. The other legal term for this person is “legal guardian” which is not necessarily the step-father/mother as that person may be more simply living with their mate and may have NO rights/obligations to the minor in that home per se.

If by living arrangement or “common law,” the step-parent is fulfilling the parent role, then he/she would also be included in our term “parent” but wouldn’t be the short term, live-in boyfriend (otherwise we would use “close friend”).”

So, on the evidence, cyberporn is a domestic terrorism priority as reports of cyberporn child sexual exposure and/or harassment soared 2,222%

From 4,573 to 106,201 cases between 1998 and 2004. Some of these cases resulted in direct physical harm to the child, others in coarsening and shock, but all cause emotional damage along with brain structural changes of unknown and unknowable magnitude.

Biological Versus “Other” Parental Abuse Rates

Misleading “family” definitions take on an ideological cast in the context of the massive research produced by the OJJDP and DOJ premier child abuse expert, David Finkelhor. In 1979, Professor Finkelhor warned in Sexually Victimized Children of the increased sexual risk to children in a nonbiological family environment, warning especially of stepparent family hazards. Why then, having stated in 1979 that stepfathers were “almost 150 percent” more responsible for “family” sexual abuse, does Finklehor neither note that fact or distinguish between step fathers and birth fathers in his many research papers on child abuse in the family?

[T]he addition of a stepfather to a girl’s family causes her vulnerability to skyrocket. Girls who are merely without fathers were about 50 percent more vulnerable than the average girl, but girls with stepfathers were almost 150 percent more vulnerable ….Clinicians have noted that in many cases of father-daughter incest the offender was really a stepfather…. Indeed our data give support to this picture. The rate of father-daughter incest is much higher in the families with stepfathers than in any other subgroup in the whole survey—almost five times higher….[G]irls in these families are more vulnerable to stepbrothers, stepsisters, step cousins…[and possibly] a coterie of friends and acquaintances who are not so protective toward a stepdaughter. (Emphasis added)[1].

However, after stating in 1979 that the evidence was clear regarding the danger to children from non biological fathers, Finkelhor deliberately adds the number of predators who are step fathers with those who are birth fathers together and calls this group “parent” and “family.” Why do that? Whose interests are served by such a false classification? Is this flawed redefinition based on a personal or an ideological decision? And, why has no one protested? Why do neither DOJ or OJJDP investigate these repeatedly misleading definitions? Why do neither DOJ nor OJJDP investigate what else of this nature may be falsely disseminated via their “child abuse” reports?

“Report on the Nation’s Youth” (June 2000).

In June 2000 Finkelhor et al produced a “Report on the Nation’s Youth” in which the authors explained that there were “several thousand” child abuse incidents that year due to online solicitations, and “almost all of these would go unreported.”

Based on the results of this study, it appears that several million young people ages 10 through 17 get propositioned on the Internet every year…. If even some small percentage of these encounters results in offline sexual assault or illegal sexual contact — a percentage smaller than we could detect in this survey—it would amount to several thousand incidents.

Youth and parents do not report these experiences and do not know where to report them…. Even the most serious episodes were rarely reported[2].

Bear this report of thousands of unreported cyberporn abducted children as we proceed. Let’s briefly look at four more US Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports:

13 “Child Abuse Reported to the Police” by Finkelhor et al.,

14. “Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases” by Finkelhor et al. and

15. “Pornography Crimes Involving Juveniles,” by Finkelhor et al.

16. “America’s Children: Key National Indicators Of Well-Being,” a 20 Agency report.

 

CONTEXT: in 1990 the National Incidence Study of “Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Throwaway Children in America” (NISMART) was conducted by Finkehor, Hotaling and Sedlak. These were undertaken in response to the mandate of the 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act that requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic studies to determine the actual number of children reported missing and the number of missing children who are recovered for a given year.

Finkelhor said a “family member” was “anyone with a romantic or sexual involvement with at parent” (p. ix). With that definition, sexual abuse by “family members” would go sky-high.

 


 

 

[1] David Finkelhor, Sexually Victimized Children, The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1979 pp. 122-123.

[2] David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, Janis Wolak , “Crimes Against Children Research Center,” June 2000. National Center For Missing & Exploited Children, Pp, 33-34.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.