You are here:   Academia > Britain's Apologists For Child Abuse
 
“Post-Savile, it was almost impossible to be a [child abuse] denier, but there will always be some. Nature created puberty for good reason. We know it is wrong to have sex with pre-pubescent children.”

Not all would agree with Wolmar on the matter of pre-pubescent children being non-sexual. In 1993, Nettie Pollard wrote an essay called “The Small Matter of Children” which begins by discussing “children’s rights”: “But baby boys are born with erections and girls with genitals swelling and vaginal lubrication . . . Masters and Johnson found that lubrication resulted from sexual stimulation in baby girls. Clearly, birth contains elements of sexual arousal for babies.

“Babies often react sexually when being held, or in other moments of physical pleasure. Reaction akin to orgasm has been detected in babies only a few months old, though masturbation and orgasm are rarely detected before the ages of one or two, and not all children masturbate.”

As Pollard’s views demonstrate, those who refuse to accept the harm done to victims of child sexual abuse are not confined to those directly abusing children. Some so-called experts in the field argue that for some adults, sex with children is a “natural” desire. In 2001 Glenn Wilson was ranked among the ten most frequently cited British psychologists in scientific journals. Wilson is co-author of the book Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation (2008), which states the case for a genetic basis to same-sex attraction and orientation. He is also co-author of The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society (1981), in which he writes that “the majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational”.

Qazi Rahman, who wrote Born Gay with Wilson, is a highly respected and much cited biologist based at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. I asked him if he believed that the urge to abuse children is actually hard-wired. He said: “There is growing evidence of biological and brain differences, where the brains are cross-wired.”

What about paedophile rights? If Rahman and Wilson use the “gay gene” argument to ask for homosexual rights, why not then for child abusers? All they have to say is that there is a medical or genetic basis, as opposed to the fact that they chose to abuse children for power and sadism.

Rahman agrees that this can be problematic: “Should we feel sorry for paedophiles? As soon as the liberals get that rhetoric going, we will not be able to make any subtle distinctions as to who is dangerous and who is not.”

Ken Plummer is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Sociology at Essex University. Plummer, who is gay, contributed to a book called Perspectives on Paedophilia (1981). It was a supposedly objective look at paedophilia and was designed to be used on social work training courses. Plummer was a member of PIE in the late 1970s for “research purposes”.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Kim
August 30th, 2015
11:08 PM
Thank you so much Julie for writing this article. It is so important that someone investigates the nuances and not just sees things in black and white. Your article seems to have already upset someone in the skeptic / debunker / anomalistic brigade. Just remember that whenever they accuse you of being "unscientific" according to their narrow positivist def then it means you are on to something.

James Murray
August 29th, 2015
9:08 PM
The writer loses any credibility when she quotes Judith Jones as a sympathetic viewpoint. Jones and her partner in crime Beatrix Campbell were at the forefront of the sickening false child abuse accusations of the 80's and early 90's: Cleveland, Orkney, Nottingham.

dwpandme
August 28th, 2015
2:08 AM
I don't think I've ever read such a long article that achieves so little. I have to wonder what could possibly have motivated you to compose such a piece when you clearly have neither scientific evidence nor coherently reasoned argument at your disposal. I am not being facetious when I say that after reading the entire article I was left with no clear understanding of the standpoint you are taking on this issue and I don't believe that to be a reflection of my poor comprehension skills. Throughout the article you paraphrase and quote the opinions of academics and experts whose views you clearly don't share. This is good, you're setting up an argument that you wish to criticize, the next step is to reveal the weaknesses and bring to light the inconsistencies that invalidate that argument; however, you don't seem to think that this step is necessary. Instead you imagine that it is enough to suggest that because the implications of the conclusions which evidence and scientific inquiry compel us to draw are problematic and cause you to experience cognitive dissonance, this is itself enough for you to dismissively dispense with all such nonsense without further thought. Unfortunately, by your refusing to apply any faculty of intellect to seriously take on the issues that you raise, you deny me the opportunity to engage in constructive discourse regarding a matter which is of great importance and universal concern.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.