Child Sex Abuse Hysteria

Several authors have documented the hysteria over child sex abuse in the past (1,2,3,4), but the hysteria continues today and is even becoming entrenched. I’ve documented one writer’s clearly hysterical prescriptions against child nudity and physical contact with children in detail in a previous post (see Respecting Children’s Boundaries). In this post I will discuss some recent examples of hysteria and the refusal of the hysterics to confront criticism.

Some individuals continue to believe that early sexual experience between different age groups is usually seriously harmful – despite the lack of valid evidence, and even despite the existence of clear counter-evidence (5). In one of the most infamous moments in recent American history the U.S. Congress voted to censure the American Psychological Association for publishing that evidence.

In his study of logic, Willard Quine describes how the strength of a belief should correspond to the strength of the evidence. Strong evidence should foster a strong belief, while weak evidence should foster a weak belief. In contrast, if someone has a strong belief based on weak evidence, or a weak belief despite strong evidence, then those beliefs are irrational (6).

The strongest evidence is that which we can observe with our own senses repeatedly, such as an experiment that can be repeated. The next strongest form of evidence is an observation we have made ourselves but only once. That is weaker because our single perception may be mistaken, and over time we must rely on memory, which is known to be fallible. A still weaker form of evidence is the trusted witness. Although he may usually be reliable, he may be mistaken or lying in some particular case. The weakest form of evidence is the unknown or anonymous witness, who may be the biggest liar in history as far as we know. A witness has little incentive to be truthful if we have no way to confirm or disconfirm what he claims.

Western culture today is inundated with the testimony of unknown or anonymous witnesses claiming that child sex abuse is usually seriously harmful, that talking-cures are safe and effective, and that the “professionals” who “work with” victims of abuse have gained reliable knowledge that we can generalize to everyone. No wonder hysterics prefer to ignore or censor the counter-evidence.

After more than 30 years of mass hysteria over the sexual revolution (7), some writers today are still wringing their hands over the supposedly traumatic effects of any sexual experience between different age groups, without citing any evidence other than their personal experience, as if their case is typical, or as if we should ignore the principles of inductive logic: generalize as much as you want, because the hysteria is supposedly above criticism.

I’ve attempted to contribute to several blogs by politely pointing out the need for verifiable scientific evidence, and I request documentation of the claims made. I also cite counter-evidence, in the hope that the writer will confront it. But some bloggers simply refuse to publish or reply to my comments, as if they don’t trust their readers to remain faithful to the dogma when they learn there are two sides of the story.

A few bloggers do publish and reply to my comments initially, dismissing my request for documentation as unnecessary because the supposed truth is “obvious,” and they claim the counterevidence is imperfect but without specific reasons. They insist on the supposed superiority of other evidence which they neglect to specify.

When I politely suggest that a writer’s replies to my queries are inadequate, that what they claim is far from obvious, and I insist on specific documentation for their claims, they then censor my further contribution to the discussion altogether. Some give up trying to insist that all child sex abuse is usually seriously harmful, and instead resort to an old trick: rhetorical arguments about (all) children’s supposedly inevitable incompetence to consent (see Age of Consent). I point out that competence to consent is not a moral question but an empirical claim equally lacking documentation, but they refuse to confront that objection.

Comments in one clearly hysterical blog attacked me personally, apparently the same blogger under different names, and when I replied he refused to publish my defense, so he made it appear that I am unable or unwilling to reply. That blog eventually became “private,” so unwelcome critics may not even see the blog anymore. I managed to learn that the blog itself is no longer active, and previous posts about child sex abuse have been deleted.

Another blog banned me in the middle of a debate, after they quoted one of my blog posts incorrectly and out of context, falsely accused my blog of being “pervy,” and ignored that all of my previous comments on their blog received mostly “likes.” I was banned nonetheless, as if my further challenges to politically correct dogma would be too dangerous for adults to read. That is the kind of deceptive and distorted propaganda that promotes and maintains hysteria.

Even some big “news” media are very selective in publishing comments, censoring anyone who challenges their writers to document hysterical claims. Under the guise of “moderating” comments, they only publish comments that agree with the point of view expressed in their writer’s story. There are sometimes hundreds of comments in support of the writer’s article, and seemingly no criticism at all because very critical comments have been censored. Readers are misled into assuming that the hysteria over child sex abuse is unanimous. That is hardly honest journalism.

I can understand refusing to publish spam, foul language, etc. But refusing to publish calm and polite disagreement with the writer’s point of view is pure dishonesty in the service of mass hysteria. The editors are afraid to admit their story is superficial sensationalism promoting hysteria.

There was a local case of a man who was savagely beaten by a hysterical mob because they thought he is a sex offender against children. A rumor started and that was all the mob needed to hear. They didn’t bother to confirm whether he was actually a sex offender or not. The attitude of the mob was: Punish first, and ask questions later. If that’s not hysteria, then what is?

That was a clear case of gratuitous sadism driven and excused by hysteria. Individuals who probably have no interest in children in their daily lives, take legal matters into their own hands, commit assault and battery, and we are supposed to believe they are good, responsible citizens concerned about morality, justice and protecting children?

The individuals in that mob were exhibiting the most disgraceful form of human behavior, but that indictment of the ill effects of hysteria was never reported by the mass media. At this point many unscrupulous individuals have a vested interest in maintaining the mass hysteria over child sex abuse, to hide their own responsibility in the disgraceful violence and destruction they have contributed to.

In the past it was common for children in preschools to sit on a teacher’s lap, but nowadays many preschools have policies which prohibit that, with potentially negative effects on both teachers and children (8). The focus of such policies is the male lap, not the female lap, and the primary goal of such policies is not to avoid sex abuse, but to avoid hysterical suspicion and possible lawsuits based on false accusations.

It is known that skin contact with children stimulates production of an adult’s hormones for nurturing behavior. Prohibiting physical contact between children and caregivers may cause or contribute to child neglect (the leading cause of serious injury and death in childhood), and is therefore potentially dangerous for children. Extensive contact with children is also known to decrease levels of a hormone associated with aggression: testosterone.

It is also possible that some adults who were physically abused when they were children, and as adults are now at risk of becoming physically abusive themselves, may self-medicate through affectionate physical contact and thereby protect children. Some animal research found that traumatized, anti-social monkeys improved after gentle contact with young monkeys.

The mass hysteria over child sex abuse is openly exploited by some parents going through a divorce to make false accusations against a spouse for ulterior (e.g. financial) motives. At least one consultant advises parents going through a divorce to never be alone with their own children to avoid false accusations, which are often believed by the courts at face value without meeting the normal standards of evidence (9). Individuals who make false accusations of witchcraft in the middle of an international witch hunt are worse than hysterics – they are psychopaths.

One noted psychiatrist suggested that we all have some “pedophilic tendencies,” and the popular interest in child sex abuse is merely a respectable way for some individuals to think about, talk about, and visualize (fantasize) adults “having sex” with children (10).

In a discussion of one of my book reviews on Amazon, a hysteric said I am “probably a high-up member” of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). I replied that I have never been a member of NAMBLA at all, and have never even visited their web site (if they have one). I also challenged the hysteric to point out exactly where I have ever said anything promoting pedophilia. She did not respond to my challenge, and instead deleted her comment. In another discussion elsewhere, a different critic first called me a NAMBLA member, but later said calling me a NAMBLA member would be a disservice to that organization!

Recently on a major photo-sharing website a hysteric complained that a member had posted “inappropriate photos” in a child photo group. He called the images “thinly-veiled, pornography-like” photos. But the photos in question were of a child wearing a bathing suit in normal poses on the beach, no different from any other normal, family photos. The hysteric’s complaint seemed so silly that I wondered if he was joking. Instead of succeeding in starting a witch hunt, the hysteric himself was banned from the group after he refused to respond to a demand that he apologize to the photographer he attacked. All of which indicates that although the mass hysteria over child sex abuse seems overwhelming, it is actually a paper tiger.

Attorney Lawrence Stanley has described how the myth of a huge market for so-called “kiddie porn” has never been substantiated, despite being thoroughly investigated by the world’s most high-tech law enforcement agencies. For more than 30 years the FBI, Interpol, U.S. Postal Service and other government agencies have spent millions of dollars investigating, but they only succeed in uncovering little mom-and-pop operations with a handful of customers. Although there seems to be a huge market for adult porn, there is no evidence for a “huge” market for kiddie porn, there never was any such market, and probably never will be.

The hysteria over so-called “pedophilia” is similar. For years I have observed apparently suspicious individuals on the web who seem to be undercover investigators posing as pedophiles in an attempt to entrap real pedophiles. The only trouble is that the supposedly real “pedophiles” don’t exist, or if they do exist they are greatly outnumbered by the undercover investigators. What is popularly believed to be the mass threat of “pedophilia on the web” is actually created and maintained by government employees with nothing better to do but waste citizens’ tax money on fishing expeditions.

If we define pedophilia as a sexual fixation on children, then it is probably extremely rare (11), and should certainly be considered a very low priority on the long list of problems facing society in general and children in particular. To milk that rare condition as much as possible, opportunists and profiteers (investigators, therapists, sensationalist journalists, ambulance chasers) attempt to broaden their potential market to include anybody who says the words sex and children in the same sentence, or anyone who photographs a child in a bathing suit on the beach, regardless of the absurdity of their case, the waste of valuable resources, and possible damage to innocent people that result.

Hysterics need to get their own priorities straight. In addition to the exaggerated concern over supposed dangers to mental health, there are also confused expressions of moral outrage over children’s sex play. However, honestly concerned writers distinguish between transgressions against morality and transgressions against convention. A transgression against morality entails an identifiable victim and an identifiable injury. Photography of family nudity and social nudity, or sex education, child massage, etc. are conventional to some people and unconventional to others. But there are no identifiable victims and no identifiable injuries in photography, nudism, sex education or massage.

Even an actual injury in an identifiable victim is not necessarily a moral issue unless there is evidence of an intent to cause harm or a reckless disregard of a possibly harmful outcome. Individuals are hysterical when they eagerly censor opposing views and focus on attempting to punish alleged perpetrators rather than trying to do anything to prevent actual injuries or help actual victims.

Some parents and teachers actively encourage children to interpret sexual experience negatively and react with panic by using specially prepared videos and pamphlets about so-called “bad touch.” Some hysterics buy multiple titles of indoctrination pamphlets that all say virtually the same thing: sex abuse is so catastrophic that warnings must be repeated over and over again. Rather than protecting children from potential harm or minimizing actual harm, such terrorizing sacrifices the child’s best interests and attempts to cultivate a negative reaction in children that some adults want them to have.

Some pediatric textbooks now repeatedly advise physicians to “Always remember to screen for abuse” (12). That warning appears even in a section on labial adhesions (!) and is inexplicable except to protect doctors from the risk of accusations by hysterical parents that the physician exhibits “too much” interest in separating the child patient’s labia as part of the exam. Some pediatricians even promote so-called “counseling” for sex abuse (no longer called “therapy” to avoid malpractice suits), even though such “help” has never been shown to be safe or effective by medical standards.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: Whoever crusades against sexual terror should be careful she doesn’t become a terrorist herself. Some journalists have been known to completely invent stories and then publish them as “news,” and the following examples of some recent headlines certainly seem unbelievable:

Ten-Year-Old Girl Accused of Rape During Game of Doctor

Hand-Holding Deemed a Gateway Sexual Activity

Photo Lab Reports Kids’ Bath Photos to Police–abc-news-savings-and-investment.html

The initial concern over child sex abuse 30 years ago may have been motivated by a noble desire to protect children from insensitivity and exploitation. What is wrong or perverted about sex play between different age groups is not the difference in age, but when (if) a younger person’s best interests are sacrificed for an older person’s selfish pleasure or profit.

That is a perversion of the natural ideal of older individuals sacrificing themselves and nurturing children to help them grow strong and become constructive contributors to their community. That ideal has now been corrupted into its opposite: promoting the mass hysteria over child sex abuse is blatant exploitation of children’s best interests for the pleasure and profit of some adults who are primarily interested in their own personal, political or financial goals at children’s expense.


1. Ofshe, Richard & Watters, Ethan. Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy and Sex Hysteria. University of California Press, 1994.
2. Wexler, Richard. Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse. Prometheus Books, 1995.
3. Lyon, Kathryn. Witch Hunt: A True Story of Social Hysteria and Abused Justice. Avon Books, 1998.
4. Pendergrast, Mark. Victims of Memory: Incest Allegations and Shattered Lives. Upper Access Book Pub., 1995.
5. Rind, Bruce et al.  A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples (Psychological Bulletin 1998, Vol. 124, No. 1, 22-53); and Rind et al. The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001) (Psychological Bulletin 2001. Vol. 127. No. 6. 734-758).
6. Quine, W.V. et al. The Web of Belief. McGraw-Hill, 1978.
7. Roiphe, Katie. Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at Century’s End. Vintage, 1997.
8. Tobin, Joseph (ed.) Making a Place for Pleasure in Early Childhood Education. Yale University Press, 1997.
9. Tong, Dean. Ellusive Innocence: A Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused. Huntington House, 2002.
10. Gardner, Richard A. Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited. Creative Therapeutics, 1991.
11. Seto, Michael J. Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment and Intervention. American Psychological Association, 2007.
12. Adams, Paula J. (ed.) Practical Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

About Frank Adamo

Author of the novel "Revolt of the Children," the eBook "Real Child Safety", a photo-documentary "Girl Becomes Woman," and a video for kids "Buddy Massage." I do not defend, promote or excuse any kind of abuse or exploitation. Become a part of the Foundation for Research and Education on Child Safety.
This entry was posted in child sexual abuse, children, sex, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Child Sex Abuse Hysteria

  1. With early detection and appropriate treatment, society can prevent some victimized children from becoming adult perpetrators. In order to intervene early in abuse, parents should educate their children about appropriate sexual behavior and how to feel comfortable saying no (American Humane Association Children’s Division, 1993).


  2. sexhysteria says:

    Thanks for your comment. What you say may be true, assuming that you are talking about true abuse,and not merely any form of harmless sex play in childhood. As far as we know, so-called detection and treatment may cause more damage to the individual child and society in general by promoting the mass hysteria over sexuality that ignores the more frequent and more deadly dangers that children face in everyday life.


  3. Quills says:

    I was sexually abused as a child. Around age 4. My grandmothers boyfriend pressured me into giving him a handjob. I didn’t understand it, but felt confused and could tell something was wrong. There was a tightness in my chest. I told my parents what happened and they went to the police. The police recorded a phone conversation of me on the phone with him and him admitting to the crime. He pled guilty and only got a few years.
    Once I was older and wanting to explore sexuality, I would get really bad panic attacks when trying to be sexual with my very loving boyfriend. It’s taken a long time for me to be able to have sex normally. Even now I can get triggered and go into a panic mode.
    Ended up my sister was abused as well, but never told anyone. In her teen years she had severe anorexia and had to be hospitalized. Large numbers of child abuse goes unreported.
    Honestly I find it offensive and victim-shaming to imply that child sexual abuse is something minor that doesn’t that long term negative effects on peoples lives. You sound like an apologist for child molesters.
    Do I think that people can be overly paranoid? Yes. But to imply that if sexual abuse happens, it’s no big deal, is extremely fucked up to those who’re suffering.


    • sexhysteria says:

      Thanks for your comment. It illustrates the superficial thinking on this subject. I’m sorry you and your sister were pressured into early sex. I certainly don’t advocate, defend or attempt to minimize that kind of crime. But your implication that the problems you and your sister suffered later were “caused” by your abuse is an unjustified leap in logic.

      The Rind meta-analysis of 59 unbiased studies indicates that most people who were sexually abused were NOT seriously harmed by it. So cases like yours are the exception rather than the rule, and other factors (e.g. your family environment or genetic constitution) enter the equation.

      Ignoring the best evidence on child sexual abuse and accusing me of being an “apologist” for child molesters makes you seem suspiciously like an agent of one or more of the many special interests that profit from sex hysteria. You completely ignore the possible damage to the majority of children who are never abused but are the victims of constant surveillance, investigation and shame-training to “prevent” the supposedly likely effects of abuse.

      Why don’t you address the issue of clitoral erectile dysfunction (in a previous post), which probably affects millions of girls, and which is excused and justified by the popular belief in the “urgency” of preventing sex abuse.


  4. Pingback: Sex, Morality, and the Law | Sexhysteria's Blog

  5. Pingback: Pedophobia | Sexhysteria's Blog

  6. Pingback: Child Massage | Sexhysteria's Blog

  7. Old Music says:

    The Rind meta-analysis and its conclusions are not uncontroversial, nor are they conclusive, set-in-stone ‘proof’ of anything you are claiming.

    The abstract of the Rind paper is freely available on PubMed:

    On the right of the page are links to other articles written in response to it, your readers are free to browse through them and make up their own mind, but these are my favourites:

    “B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) examined the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) by meta-analyzing studies of college students. The authors reported that effects “were neither pervasive nor typically intense” and that “men reacted much less negatively than women” (p. 22) and recommended value-neutral reconceptualization of the CSA construct. The current analysis revealed numerous problems in that study that minimized CSA-adjustment relations, including use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.’s study’s main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings.”

    “An article, A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples; published in the July 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin resulted in an unprecedented amount of media attention and became the first scientific article to be formally denounced by the United States House of Representatives. The study’s authors analyzed the findings of 59 earlier studies on child sexual abuse (CSA) and concluded that mental health researchers have greatly overstated CSA’s harmful potential. They recommended that a willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered to be sexual abuse; instead, it would simply be labeled adult-child sex. The study’s conclusions and recommendations spawned a debate in both the popular and scholarly press. A number of commentators suggested that the study is pedophile propaganda masquerading as science. Others claimed that the authors are victims of a moralistic witch-hunt and that scientific freedom is being threatened. After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings.”

    “The goal of this article is to present a methodological critique of the 1998 meta-analysis of child sexual abuse outcomes by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. Seven major concerns are addressed. Rind et al.’s view is, at best, extremely limited. By restricting a supposedly broad meta-analysis to only some of the population in question, the conclusions they drew regarding this complex topic, primarily that adult-child sex is not necessarily harmful, are invalid.”


    • sexhysteria says:

      Thanks for your comment, but what you quoted is merely citing many assertions or accusations, without any detailed evidence or direct quotations. They (and you) seem eager to discredit the Rind study rather than fairly presenting its strengths and weaknesses. You seem to have read only the abstracts rather than the original Rind study and its criticisms. I’ve never claimed that the Rind study is conclusive or set-in-stone proof of anything. The Rind study is merely the best evidence we have on the subject to date, compared to the unscientific and biased studies previously published to promote the child sex abuse rescue business.


  8. Old Music says:

    I am not citing “assertions or accusations” I am citing academic papers that reject the Rind study – that’s how science works, argument and counter argument – I couldn’t find a single paper supporting Rind that wasn’t authored by Rind.

    You do not have evidence to back up your claim that Rind is the ‘best evidence’ of anything.


  9. sexhysteria says:

    The number of academic papers that you claim “reject” the Rind study shouldn’t impress anybody, especially since you don’t deny my suggestion that you haven’t even read the Rind study and its critics – you merely read the abstracts.

    You can easily find at least one later study by other researchers that replicated Rind’s major findings: it’s cited in the Wikipedia article on the Rind study. I confidently say the Rind study is “the best evidence we have” on the subject compared to the previous qualitative studies of biased populations (mostly women in therapy for mental problems).

    If you want to support the mass hysteria over child sex abuse and the continuing mental castration of millions of girls, you need to cite a quantitative study of the general population that shows most victims are seriously injured by early sex abuse. That’s the counter-evidence you are lacking.

    Here’s my more detailed discussion of the Rind study, which you apparently haven’t read either:


  10. Old Music says:

    You are a pedophile apologist, you conflate the innocent and healthy sex play between children with “adult child sex” and even tell a woman you acknowledge was forced, that her sexual abuse could not have done her any harm, so you are also an apologist for child rape.

    I don’t have access to the full papers, that doesn’t mean I am going to trust your interpretation, since you very obviously have your own vested interests – why else set up a phony ‘Foundation for Research and Education’ to try to rubbish sex abuse victims?

    Little girls are not ‘mentally castrated’ by being protected from predatory adult men – you are shitting on the testimony of literally millions of women (and men) who were sexually abused as children.

    I can see what you are doing, and, thankfully, anyone else with half a brain can see it too.


    • sexhysteria says:

      You are making blatantly false accusations. You don’t have access to any libraries? The number of people who claim or think they were sexually abused is no foundation for a valid generalization. Your case is so weak you have no other choice than to be dishonest in attacking me. I can understand that your education was limited, so your comments can’t do any better than lie.


  11. Old Music says:

    The Rind study is not the ‘best evidence’, it is the evidence that best fits in with your ideology. Cherry picking one study, ignoring all the criticisms of that study, and all the other evidence that does not support that study, is not science it is ideology.

    Just from reading the abstracts I posted above, and from reading how you describe the Rind study, I can see that the only way Rind could ‘prove’ that “adult child sex” was harmless, was by not counting the population that was seriously harmed by it. This is like a drug manufacturer ‘proving’ their new drug is effective, by not publishing info on the trials that didn’t work (this has actually happened in the past, now all drugs trials have to be publically registered, so the data can’t be distorted by only publishing the successes).


    • sexhysteria says:

      The Rind study isn’t merely “one study,” it’s a meta-analysis of 59 unbiased studies, Neither Rind nor I has claimed that his study “proves” adult child sex is (always) harmless. By falsely accusing me of claiming that, you are constructing a straw-man to attack, because you can’t honestly attack what I really say.


  12. Old Music says:

    Tell me, ‘sex hysteria’, what do you actually want?

    Because your arguments here are contradictory, first you argue that pedophilia barely exists (it’s all a witch hunt), then you argue that “adult child sex” (the term used in the Rind study) is harmless.

    So do you think “adult child sex” actually exists or not?

    Do you want the removal of all age of consent laws?

    Do you also want to legalise rape? Because if child rape can’t do any harm (and you admitted, above, that Quills had been forced, but insisted that it couldn’t have done her any harm), then the rape of an adult certainly can’t do any harm either, and if rape is harmless, why waste resources trying to stop it?

    Do you think preventing/persecuting rape (of adults or children) ‘sexually represses’ men?


    • sexhysteria says:

      Before asking me silly questions and making any more false accusations about what I supposedly said, you must quote my words directly from now on. Otherwise, I will consider your future comments spam and treat them accordingly.


  13. Pingback: Playing Doctor | Sexhysteria's Blog

  14. Old Music says:

    I do not have easy access to an academic library, I work full time, my weekends are taken up with other things. Most academic journals are behind pay-walls if you do not have a log-in to an academic library, which costs money.

    “The number of people who claim or think they were sexually abused is no foundation for a valid generalization.”

    What does this even mean, how can someone have the mistaken belief that they were sexually abused? Do you think the majority of people who say they were sexually abused as children are lying? Or do you think they are actually mistaken about their own experience of “adult child sex”?

    You have set up a phoney ‘research institute’, reading academic papers and then blogging about them doesn’t make you a legitimate researcher any more than reading Grey’s Anatomy cover to cover would make you a doctor. Legitimate researchers are subject to academic oversight, ethics committees and peer review; legitimate research foundations have a physical location and more than a hotmail account in terms of contact details.

    You have an over-priced pamphlet for sale on Amazon and elsewhere to fund your ‘research’, what exactly needs funding, apart from your trips to nudist beaches where you can oggle naked pre-pubescent girls?

    Your faith in one cherry-picked meta-study of only 59 other studies (a PubMed search for “PTSD” gives 10434 results for the last five years alone), which has been called into question by other academics, shows that you are biased.

    In your most recent post on Jaycee Dugard (which I found bizarre and disturbing) you write this:

    “The victim only admits that being isolated and deprived of social contact, she was naturally glad to get occasional visits from her captors. Is that the whole story? Considering the cultural context of political correctness that prohibits acknowledgement of sexual desire and sexual pleasure early in life (especially in girls), it would be surprising to hear otherwise. On the other hand if a rape victim is already sexually dysfunctional, as most women are today (2), then we should not be surprised if the sex was not pleasurable. Nor should we be surprised if a sexually dysfunctional woman who is raped blames her lack of pleasure on the coercion rather than her pre-existing sexual dysfunction.”

    This is saying rape (including the rape of an 11 year old girl) should be pleasurable, and that any woman or girl who doesn’t experience sexual pleasure during rape is ‘sexually dysfunctional’. You also wrote this: ” There is good reason to believe that some mothers set the stage for a negative reaction to even minor sexual abuse” and also accuse Dugard of fantasising about being raped – I think I am entirely justified in calling you a child rape apologist.

    Go ahead and delete my comments if they upset you so much. Your overall ideology is so bizarre, I’m not actually worried, you have no influence, nobody in any position of authority is going to mistake your phoney ‘research institute’ for the real thing or take your writing seriously; and your Dugard post, with it’s deranged child rape apologism, is going to put off any one who isn’t a pedophile in the first place.


  15. Old Music says:

    Another bizarre contradiction to your ideology; you go on about clitoral erections and clitoral orgasms, then say an 11 year old girl should have enjoyed being vaginally raped (her captor was certainly raping her vaginally, otherwise she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant).

    Do you know that very few women actually experience orgasm from vaginal penetration? That vaginal penetration is unlikely to stimulate the clitoris?

    This is the ‘sexual revolution’ you defend; all sex is good, even child rape, and any woman or child who doesn’t lie back and enjoy it, is ‘sexually dysfunctional’ in some way – all caused by evil mothers of course (where are the literal and figurative patriarchs in all this?), because in your perverted world, there is no reasonable middle ground between protecting children from sexual predators, and instilling shame about sex, despite the fact that plenty of mothers manage just that.

    Female sexual dysfunction doesn’t exist as a specific medical condition, it’s a condition made up by the pharmaceutical industry to create a new market to sell unnecessary drugs to (see the recent ‘pink viagra’). Men like you describe any woman (or girl) as ‘sexually dysfunctional’ if she doesn’t want to be fucked as often as you want to fuck her. Men like you can’t face the idea that genuine sexual liberation for women may mean less sex, or even no sex with men at all.


  16. sexhysteria says:

    You misquote me because your position is indefensible in honest terms. I never said “an 11-year-old girl should have enjoyed being vaginally raped.” Quite the contrary, I said if an 11-year-old girl does not enjoy being raped that is unsurprising. Your position thrives on rhetorical dishonesty.

    You are also wrong about vaginal penetration not stimulating the clitoris. What is traditionally called the clitoris is merely the tip of the iceberg. We now know that the clitoris actually extends internally and forks along both sides of the vaginal opening. Even Wikipedia now offers an up-to-date illustration of the internal part of the clitoris.

    If a woman doesn’t experience clitoral erection when her clitoris is stimulated by intercourse – even with the person she loves – that’s a reasonable sign that she’s sexually dysfunctional. Reducing the sensitivity of the clitoris is precisely the desired effect of mentally castrating millions of little girls today. The same reason why in the past the clitoris was physically mutilated: cut by a knife or burned by pouring carbonic acid on the tip.

    Please quote exactly where I ever said “all sex is good, even child rape.” Otherwise you are transparently lying. On numerous occasions I have clearly stated that insensitivity, exploitation, and coercion are wrong and harmful. Instead of quoting me fairly, you can only resort to false accusations. Thanks for being a clear example of how pathetic sexual hysteria is.


  17. Old Music says:

    I want to add that I do not agree with your model of sex education as a whole. As a whole it sounds like a visual aid for grooming young children for sexual abuse, particularly incestuous sexual abuse. Small children are eager to please their parents and other adults, and it would be very easy to manipulate a small child into a superficial kind of ‘consent’ to sexual contact, especially if they’ve just been shown a recording of a happy child handling their smiling father’s erect penis. A common line from incestuous child abusers is ‘this is how daddies show they love their children’, or that they are ‘teaching’ them what adults do – but that’s the entire ethos of your model for ‘sex education’ really.

    Also, while I do agree that there are problems with sex education in the west (and the whole world really), especially for girls, I do not agree that women and girls suffer from ‘sexual castration’ as you describe it – ie I do not agree that there is something wrong with women and girls for not enjoying any and all sexual activity, up to and including rape.


  18. sexhysteria says:

    Thanks for your comment, but who cares what you agree with or don’t agree with? This blog is not a political election where it’s important or necessary to count votes. If you want to express support of the agenda for mass hysteria over child sex abuse, you need to make more than superficial accusations like “As a whole it sounds like a visual aid for grooming young children for sexual abuse…”

    Your agreement or disagreement with widespread female sexual dysfunction is irrelevant. Address the evidence: in several surveys the majority of women today self-report sexual dysfunction, e.g. they never or almost never experience orgasm during normal genital intercourse. A more recent post discusses the broad issue of sex education in more detail:


  19. Pingback: Emotional Incest | Sexhysteria's Blog

Leave a Reply to Quills Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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