What Do You Mean, You Don’t Know?

At this point in Western history, an adult who recognises they are attracted to the young is positioned inside their society negatively, especially those societies shaped by Anglophile traditions. The challenge is how to move beyond a negatively framed way of seeing oneself and the desires that are at the core of who one is.

An earlier post on this site argued minor attracted persons (MAP) can look to how others  talk about how they see themselves. Navigating life often involves learning from others – so the idea that the group you belong to needs to reinvent the wheel and solve all problems from within seems to me an unhelpful expectation.

Competing Responsibilities Sociology Conference, 2014

Competing Responsibilities Sociology Conference, 2014

The post I  refer to had a context – a talk by Prof. Nikolas Rose titled “Making us resilient: responsible citizens for uncertain times”, which was the keynote address at a sociology seminar titled Competing Responsibilities: The politics and ethics of responsibility in contemporary life.  His talk did not reference the life situation of the MAP. Rose encouraged people to look for more positive ways of framing talk of the self. A key term he used for that process was the word resilience which he used inside the title of his talk. I argue MAPs need to look at this concept as part of crafting a responsible and ethical way to live their life in 2015. I know Prof. Rose does not agree with this idea because I asked him. His message was directed at people who are not minor attracted; he wanted them to focus on developing resilience, as a positive response to modern life. The ‘resilience’ message is a valuable one for everybody – including those who are minor attracted.

Behaviourist models of human sexuality centre on risk and risk management; prison based programs for those convicted of child sexual abuse and community based versions of the same programs are often informed by behaviouristic models. I argue these programs restrict how individuals see themselves. I need to be very clear here and assure the reader my objective is to promote a process where a person sees it as their responsibility to live and craft an ethical life. It goes without saying MAPs, whether they have convictions for sexual abuse or not, are not asked to contribute to how they manage their lives – they are told how to live, how they must live.

That call for all of us to live ethically – if one is informed by Western philosophical ideas – reaches all the way back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. According to that tradition what I am talking about is how to live a good life. Despite the long time-lapse between those philosophers and where we find ourselves, that challenge has not gone away.

Not limiting itself to commending Prof. Rose’s call to resilience, my post also hinted that valuable insights may be gleaned from writers who comment from within diverse worlds: psychoanalysis, Marxism, philosophy, history, critical theory, etc.

My reading in recent years has included a number of writers and social theorists: Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Elizabeth Roundinesco, Slavoj Zizek, and Alain Badiou – a predominantly French group of intellectuals who published and debated their ideas of freedom, ideology, knowledge, emancipation, health, and sexuality.  What makes this group especially interesting is the way they bring together disparate disciplines in crafting their texts and their ideas.

The major voice informing this post is Slavoj Zizek. Of particular interest is his talk of knowledge, in particular his recommendation that we look into what he calls the science of not knowing as a part of a general theory of epistemology.  What is striking is the paradoxical way Zizek talks, and it is perhaps this feature that draws his audience  into what he has to offer.

Slavoj Zizek's talk on "Not Knowing" (YouTube)

Slavoj Zizek’s talk on “Not Knowing” (YouTube)

In his video clip, “Ideology and Modalities of Not Knowing. 2014”, Zizek explains “Ideology is not only what it says, it is also the complex network of solicited transgressions”. He offers an example from his army training.  There were things that were prohibited and there were accompanying messages about those prohibitions: if you did not transgress those prohibitions, then you would be viewed as an idiot.  He offered the example of how a soldier would be told, Don’t get drunk.  That soldier, if he did not go drinking with his comrades on a regular basis, would be viewed as failing his fellow officers and even as being unpatriotic.

Zizek argues all human communities have rules.  Accompanying those rules are what could loosely be called meta-rules – a guide to how the rules can be broken and under what conditions.  He takes a special interest in these meta-rules – and so do I.  Zizek begins by asking how the rules help reveal how ideological systems work, then via a question from his audience he explains how this rules/meta-rule idea can be seen when talking about knowledge.

In this post I am taking a further step – how might one talk about the rules/meta-rules relationship when looking at human sexuality.  I see here an opportunity to use Zizek’s thinking as a tool box rather than simply quoting what he says about sex.

The behaviourist will tell you that the key issue is: for the pedophile to not have sex with children.  A behaviourist perspective will focus on the management of sexual arousal and the management of risk.

Zizek’s argues there is a crisis that needs responding to – but it is not the crisis we read in the media. My interest is to ask the question, using Zizek’s toolbox, if we have a crisis for human sexuality – one of the issues being sexual contacts across generations – then how would it be talked about? My rendering of this issue does differ from how the behaviourists frame the discussion.

Zizek offers his view on the question of rules with the added point that the ‘not knowing’ feature of his epistemology includes modalities. The first one involves these rules paired with other rules – usually unspoken and unacknowledged – telling us how rules can be broken and in what circumstances. A second modality, another version of the same thing, is where you are offered an opportunity but the unspoken rule is you must not take it. Now let’s  unpack how this modality runs when talking about sex.

Zizek gave an example from his days in the army. At the beginning of their training a soldier is taught various things and after a short period of time there might be a public ceremony where they would make a public statement about becoming a member of the army.  They would also be offered the chance to sign the book stating their commitment. Of course the signing is positioned as a moment of free choice. This opportunity includes the ability to say no, I won’t sign.  Zizek recounts an army cadet who asked was he free when signing and was told yes. He then said “I don’t sign”. The trainers were angry; they felt the cadet had ‘broken a central rule’. They issued a written order – sign the book freely. The situation looks absurd, even humorous, but the important point is the army officials were very serious. For them it was no joke!

The behaviourist approach regarding minor attraction is to focus on a prohibition – you must not have sex with children; and more than this, in your thinking about them, you must not explore that idea as positive. For the behaviourist – and others, I suspect – this is how they would frame today’s crisis: don’t have sex across generations. Using Zizek’s talk of rules we can frame the situation differently. Yes, there is a crisis but it is not this one. The real crisis is the possibility that people might be given the choice – that you actually are free to decide, and it is this, I argue, that frightens people. This is our current crisis; you have an opportunity, you are expected to say no, freely, but now it becomes necessary for us to acknowledge some may say yes.

This post is not offering is a full history of all human choices regarding this matter; that would be bold and an unfair request for a reader to make. What is offered is a way of seeing how this practice of not knowing has been brought into the light.

Zizek mentions how the issue of not knowing has been highlighted by the Wikileaks situation and the disclosures by Edward Snowden.  Zizek argues that while some detail is being made available to us, it has not been a process where at one time we knew nothing and now we know it all.  He argues the crisis for democracy is the cessation of the ability to say we don’t know.  Zizek puts it to us we always suspected our leaders acted the way Julian Assange and Edward Snowden position them.  The crisis is now we can’t say we don’t know.  To cement his argument Zizek links this situation of the crisis to Jacques Lacan’s view that most of us ‘don’t want to know’.  Lacan questions the assumption that  we are all curious animals who, at our core, desperately want to know things.  Lacan argues, in some areas of life and in certain situations we desperately want to send the message, “I don’t know” or “I did not know this”.  This is, in Lacan’s view, a crisis situation for many.

For Western cultures in the period before the 1970s the situation ran along these lines: a person is offered opportunities where they could have sex with children, but these are opportunities to which the person must always say no.  In this period there were people who said yes.  The meta-rule required that this be part of what is not known.

At that time there was no imagined future where one might be offered a real choice in this matter; nor was it perceived there was a new wave of social optimism unfolding where such choice could be publicly acknowledged.  Furthermore, before the 1970s this view was the preferred understanding of how everything worked.  There was an overarching set of rules, one where you were told what you could and couldn’t do.  Interestingly we felt free, but it was deemed a freedom we must not act on.  We were free, as long as we never said no to the prohibition.  Just like Zizek’s cadet who was ordered to freely sign the book, this was all done freely.

With the 1960s and 1970s I argue freedom and our general social fabric experienced a jolt – we asked in a very broad way, are we really free?  The disruption of two world wars, shifts in bodies of knowledge about sexuality, gay liberation, the rise of equal rights for women – the mix is complex.  We had preferred not to know we were being told what to do, we considered ourselves free and indeed expressed strong political, philosophical and even religious ideas about why this mattered.  But with the 1970s, to keep that old view about ourselves became harder to sustain.  It was this that defined the crisis for Western societies and Western cultures.

"... very few victims reported any fear, shock, force or violence at the time the abuse occurred." p.22

“… very few victims reported any fear, shock, force or violence at the time the abuse occurred.” p.22

I argue intergenerational sexually-expressed friendships were impacted by those shifts.  Along with the narratives of sexual emancipation came narratives of abuse and exploitation.  Those stories have multiplied greatly, and have become increasingly valued narratives inside our culture.

The prominence given to the ‘sex abuse industry’ tells us that it is more than merely one discourse among many; it behaves as if it is the benchmark against which all narratives of this sort are measured.  In terms of what this post argues our current position is not one of “now we know all”; what persists, in fact, is our version of not knowing.

We have always known, or at least suspected, that some of those relationships between the young and the older involved consent, friendship and reciprocity.  To this knowledge we say “I don’t know.”

My text speaks to the narratives which, for a short time, emerged but seem to have subsequently been shut down. There were friendships in which rules were broken.  We knew some adults had sex with children.  Public accounts of allegations of sex with children in day care centres multiplied.  Groups were formed – like the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in England.  It became increasingly difficult to hold to the view, “We don’t know”.  By the 1990s, with the help of the media, we were telling ourselves our eyes were opened, and now we knew better.  The knowing, however, focuses on abuse narratives.  The knowing, I argue, still retains a piece of the earlier modality.  To this day, in public discourse, we act as if we don’t know about the non-abusive and non-exploitative intergenerational exchanges.

The sexual profile of the pedophile has never been so much a part of media talk and most recently there seems to be a desperate desire to explain the origins of the pedophile sexual orientation just as there were similar efforts to explain the homosexual male in the 1990s.

The ideological grip of heterosexism has been dislodged.  Sexual variety is experienced as part of the way things are.  The idea of ‘what is normal’ functions to limit what we say yes to, but we can’t say that variety and complexity experienced at the level of the individual as desire, is unknown to us.

The real root of our crisis I argue is the possibility of a different life, a different set of choices.  A minor attracted person can and even should be encouraged to make a life; that life can and should be ethically crafted; that life can and should be seen as free.  It is not about permission to have sex with children.  We have always known for some the choice might well be to say yes to opportunities to form friendships and be ‘all that one can be’ and respond to that call to ‘be one’s best self’.  This aspirational view ultimately doesn’t tell us what to do.  As societies and cultures we are confronted with people who on the face of it are not like us – but they are in fact just like us – the gay male, the lesbian, the minor attracted, the diversity is striking.

We can’t say we don’t know any more.  Everyone is in fact called to be ethical, free, responsible members of our societies and cultures.  Our understanding of sex, sex roles, gender and gender identity offers a more detailed picture of sexuality.  Human desire is part of an ethical journey for same-sex couples, for heterosexual couples – these are our new version of normal.  But for  the individuals inside our societies for whom age is a component of how desire functions, for this group we must now wrestle with how to manage this also.

"Future can be a reference to the one who comes, whose  arrival is totally unexpected. For me that is the real future."

“Future can be a reference to the one who comes, whose arrival is totally unexpected. For me that is the real future.”

I am not arguing all this is settled, or that it is straightforward.  What is interesting and challenging is that here one can take the notions of rule and knowing used by Slavoj Zizek and attempt a process that could be called a type of unmasking.  Zizek argues that in politics we can’t go back, we can’t really say we do not know our leaders spy on us and tell us lies.  I don’t think that situation is quite the same in the area of sexuality.  The preference to not know something – all the while of course we do actual know – can be very strong.  For quite some time we might choose to tell ourselves that minor attraction is beyond our understanding; that, I think, has to be left to what is our future.  My preference is for an an inclusiveness; that preference is a possible future.  That comment offered by Jacques Derrida seems worth citing: our real future, the one that matters, remains what is likely to be unexpected and unplanned

Further Reading:

  • Clancy, S. A. (2009). The trauma myth and the truth about the sexual abuse of children – and its aftermath. New York: Basic Books.
  • Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics (Third Edition). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Ditum, S. (2015, 13 April). Why are we so desperate to find a genetic explanation for sex offenders? [Newspaper article]. New Statesman (United Kingdom), Online Magazine ed.
  • Dunham, A. (2014, 18 August). ‘Paedophiles should commit suicide’: Expert. The Local: Spains News in English (Spain), Online Newspaper ed., sec. Society. Retrieved from http://www.thelocal.es/20140818/paedophiles-should-commit-suicide-official
  • Hunter, J. (2008). The Political Use and Abuse of the “Pedophile.” Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 55(No. 3), 350-387. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360802345073
  • Rose, N. (2014, 15th to 17th August). Making us resilient: Responsible citizens for uncertain times. [One of two keynote talks.]. In Keynote Talk. Competing Responsibilities Conference, Rutherford House, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
  • Seto, M. C. (2012, Feb). Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Arch Sex Behav, 41(1), 231-6.
  • Sharpe, M. Jacques Lacan (1901-1981). In J. D. Fieser, Bradley (Ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource.
  • Sonenschein, D. (1998). Pedophiles on Parade: Volume 1 & 2, ‘The Monster in The Media’ and ‘The Popular Imagery of Moral Histeria’. San Antonio, USA: Sonenscheirn, David.
  • Zizek, S. Ideology and Modalities of Not Knowing. 2014 [You Tube item]. In European Graduate School Video Lectures. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBa-pCmuBHU#t=15
Advertisements

What you start as may matter to you; what you become matters more.

resilienceWhat does it mean to be a good person? Or more to the point, what does it take to be seen as a good person? Here in New Zealand in 2014, these are vital questions and they relate to so many current issues – politics, the economy, inequality, child abuse. The list goes on.

The behaviours of our social and political leaders are at times ethically bankrupt. There is growing inequality between rich and poor, and between the diverse cultures that make us up as a nation. Child poverty and child abuse are crucial problems, and they justify the attention they receive in the media and in public forums. At the same time as all this is happening for us as a wider society, the minor attracted person is being sent the very clear message that nothing they do can be viewed as constructive or worthwhile, ethical or good.

In modern Western culture and society the pedophile (minor attracted person) is dehumanised. The message to such a person is he/she may as well as give up. (See Dunham’s media piece, details below.) In a conversation I had with a man who is minor attracted – he is not living in New Zealand – he made the following point: “This is the message some send the pedophile – Why do anything to help others, as a pedophile society sends the pedophile the message, you can do no good. If there is a burning building with people in danger, don’t bother saving anyone, if you do anything good, the credit you gain will be short-lived. When people know what you are, that good you did will evaporate.” The people you help in that burning house may be lucky because you helped them but you will gain no thanks. This chap does not see himself this way – he is certainly not going to harm anyone – but his words are a wake-up call. He was telling me how things are; this is the thinking of so many about the pedophile, and in saying this I am challenged to include those nice educated types.

You might think things are different in an academic context. After all, these people are educated; they don’t consume media pieces in an unthinking way. The language people use in academic settings may well be different, and the arrogant and hostile attitudes are less likely to be expressed there, but these spaces are no more optimistic. It is this lesson that I think was handed to me recently at a talk I attended here in Wellington. On an internal level I have taken this on board. I find myself changing, not because things are better – more humane; no I am changing because I find myself more able to acknowledge the way things are.

The talk was part of a sociology conference – titled Competing Responsibilities: The politics and ethics of responsibility in contemporary life. I want to be very honest and careful in what I offer here. No one was nasty, no words spoken were like those of some blogger or media person slagging off at “those pedophile bastards”. However beneath the text of what was said and done the mood really was ‘just give up’. Leaving the conference venue, I realized how disappointed I am with the academic community here in New Zealand.

In his keynote address (Making us resilient: responsible citizens for uncertain times) Prof. Nikolas Rose discussed what I considered to be a good idea – he said that notions of risk management can be more positively reframed inside the idea of resilience. Modern life is full of talk of risk management – and this blogsite is named with that in mind – but the problem is that such ideas imply anxiety. With the social construct ‘pedophile’ anxiety blossoms into moral panic. Professor Rose’s words seemed very wise indeed.

Resilience is a term used when talking about helping victims of sexual abuse. Prof. Rose’s talk offered an archeology of the term resilience, together with a critical analysis. He even went on to ask, Where to next? It was in the spirit of this approach that I asked my question: When looking for a less anxiety driven and more positive view of our world can we use resilience in relation to the minor attracted person? After all, that person is required to manage a life in a very hostile society.

Prof. Rose’s response to my question was disappointing. To express an optimism where a minor attracted person can be invited to become more resilient to what is currently happening both for them and for those they are connected to – friends, family – is a non-starter, even in the academic world.

Prof. Rose’s response to my question had three steps. First he wanted to set aside the reference to pedophilia – ‘after all it is a bit of a bombshell topic’. He commented next that it would be problematic to take a soldier about to go into battle and kill people – to become the cause of considerable suffering to others – and attempt to use the term ‘resilient’ when talking about that soldier. Of course I and those in the lecture hall understood what he was saying: This is how people fear a pedophile would behave. So for Prof. Rose, and others, the pedophile is primarily a dangerous person. Rose spoke of the concern he had the pedophile might develop a suit of body armour that made them less likely to see or acknowledge the harm they do. Clearly my proposition that a pedophile be even considered to be involved in a life where being an ethical subject is central is out of the question.

The third step in Prof. Rose’s answer was to speak of his concern – and I would join him here – that some British celebrities have been made into demons and monsters, and how unfair this is. But notice what is central here is the idea that the wrong people are being made demons. It is really about the sights on your gun being out of whack; it is not about putting the gun down and nor is it an acknowledgement that dehumanizing people is a problem in its own right.

A sociologist is always going to resist being turned into a psychologist. In his talk Prof. Rose explained that resilience is more than a reference to an individual’s character or internal disposition. Resilience also involves a set of social relations that surround the individual and that this wider dimension, often a concern for a sociologist, was frequently underestimated in academic critiques of modern life. I found myself taking on board what he was arguing for.

When talk occurs in public spaces about pedophilia and sexual abuse of the young, one sometimes hears references to the need to promote resilience in the child. Listening to Prof. Rose I began to see how one could apply the concept of resilience to discuss the other party in such situations – How can the term resilience be used when talking of the adult who is minor attracted and is seeking to construct for themselves an ethic of conduct that wishes to act responsibly and also strives to own their self-making?

A second aspect is precisely what Prof. Rose was arguing for – how the social relations that surround the individual are as important as that person’s character. As things stand now the minor attracted person finds themselves stigmatised and excluded from society. How does the individual grappling with this process remain socially connected, a part of society? Resilience is sometimes referred to as a capacity to bounce back; it is here one can say the minor attracted person needs to push back against their social exclusion, to see it less as risk management and more as resilience.

My perspective and that of Prof. Rose were clearly very different. I see the minor attracted person experiencing suffering and isolation in modern life; the language of resilience might offer a more positive way to formulate a path forward. For Prof. Rose the minor attracted person simply has no permission to use ‘resilience’ in this way.

There is a set of rules at play here – including a rule about how to break the rules. (For further discussion of this point see Foucault’s text “Fearless Speech”, details offered below.) When it comes to talking about the minor attracted person, a speaker can find themselves saying something that draws a strong negative reaction. That response may well be an indicator a discursive rule has been broken. In theory my asking the question in the context of an academic conference was legitimate but the flaw in my thinking was soon apparent – in relation to the minor attracted person, talk in an academic forum is very similar to talk in a non-academic setting.

Prof. Rose did show a humanitarian feeling for certain individuals: he expressed concern about the allegations and media talk that surrounded Rolf Harris and others. Rose’s message clearly pointed to the poor use of the term ‘pedophile’ in the media coverage, but he seemed not to be showing any real insight or even interest in the life situation of the minor attracted person. He is one of many who I suspect see that beating up on old men (see Guardian article) is not the thing to do, but one would be unwise to see this humanitarian concern for the older person signals the arrival of that compassion I keep waiting for.

I have changed. My attendance at the lecture was not a mistake. I can see how things are, but I am not giving up.

As things stand, a valid question would be: Where can we source other perspectives that present as more open to what is at stake in these relationships and situations.

In this blog post the academic setting references have largely been those of sociology, psychology, linguistics and media studies. If we look at the disciplines of psychotherapy, literature, and critical theory, they include reference to the management of desire as part of managing a life. It is my view now that such ideas as these, alongisde those of Prof. Rose and his ideas of resilience, the minor attracted person, the young, and the rest of us can find a way forward.

Details:

  • Dunham A. ‘Paedophiles should commit suicide’: expert. The Local: Spains News in English. 2014, 18 August. Spain. Online Newspaper.
  • Foucault M. Fearless Speech. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), Distributed by MIT Press; 2001.
  • Harris gets jail sentence of five years nine months. The New Zealand Heald. 2014, 4 July. New Zealand. Online Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11287931
  • Lawyer says age of consent should be lowered to end ‘persecution of old men’. (2013, Thursday 9 May 2013 12.22 BST). The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/09/lawyer-age-consent-persecution-men
  • Rose N. Making us resilient: responsible citizens for uncertain times. In: Keynote Talk. Rutherford House, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. 15th to 17th August; 2014. Competing Responsibilities Conference.

Do what I say, not what I do in the world of social science research.

Sarah Goode has put up a piece on the newspaper site The Independent. (How can we prevent child abuse if we don’t understand paedophilia?) In a comment on that site I offered the folowing view.

The approach that Sarah Goode offers which says informed reflection and decision-making is better than ignorance is not a position I would criticise, rather safe positioning in my books. However the issue is, as she points out, a bit more complex than it looks at first. Her position that research done, and this includes methodologies adopted, while on this journey has a green light because it is viewed as part of child protection leaves me a little uncomfortable.

Goode states above “Now is the time to shift our attitudes and begin to explore. The journey is uncomfortable but the goal is better child protection, so any discomfort is worth tolerating”, those words “so any discomfort is worth tolerating are the ones that give me pause to think. John Haidt (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Kindle, March 29, 2012) would argue what Sarah Goode’s text does, the pulling on a cord labelled child protection, is designed to trigger something in the reader deliberately. Sarah Goode is in effect saying let me do what I want and don’t think too much about it. (I acknowledge Sarah Goode has written elsewhere about how ethics committees in academic settings have made life complicated for her, sometimes unreasonably so, “Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children: A Study of Paedophiles in Contemporary Society“, Kindle, July 3, 2009).

Research into groups does need ethical guidelines. Those being researched deserve to be protected from researchers who too often are guided by the view, “results is what matters; the subject being researched is fair game”. What I think is needed is research on the researchers. Of the work that is out there, how much of it was done ethically, where the subject being looked at was an adult who has an attraction to the young. Was the subject treated as we would want to be treated ourselves. Sarah Goode has my support, but it is not unqualified support.

When Sarah Goode did her research for the book I refer to above (Goode, 2009) the people she interviewed reported a degree of disquiet regarding her research methodology. As subjects they did not feel they had been ethically managed by her. Hopefully the concerns of those being researched will be allowed to influence how future work is done by social science authors.

  • Ryen, A. (2004). Ethical Issues. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 230-247). London ;Thousand Oaks, Calif. :: SAGE.
  • Yuill, R., & Elliot, D. (2012). Researching and Theorizing the “Age Taboo” on Intergenerational Sexualities. Journal of LGBT Youth, Volume 9, 67-71. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2012.627726
  • Rind, B. (2008). The Bailey Affair: Political Correctness and Attacks on Sex Research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 37, 481–484. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9334-0
  • Tolich, M. (2001). Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand concepts, practice, critique. Auckland, N.Z.: Longman.
  • Wallis, R. (1977). The Moral Career of a Research Project. In C. N. Bell, Howard (Ed.), Doing Sociological Research (pp. 149-167). London: George Allen & Unwin.
  • Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (Fall/Winter 2005-06). Child Sexual Abuse: A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998). The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4(2), 37-51.
  • Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 22-53.