Research shows us this. That pedosexual relations usually are not harmful but a lot of the then children, later grown ups, think negatively about their sexual encounters in their youth. Let's take a look at the Rind research. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman conducted a research at the end of the twentieth century. Their findings were shocking for many people because they concluded that pedosexual relations mostly were not harmful. Good news, but no, most people want those relations to be very harmful. When a boy had a consensual sexual contact with an adult then there was no harm to be found. A girl with a man slightly showed harm: one percent of them. Rind and the others collected all the data they could find from other researches concerning this subject and they combined all this data. One third of the boys were negative about their sexual contact with an adult, one third were neutral and one third considered their pedosexual contact a positive experience. And I guess that the sample in all those researches is a very negative one. With girls a much higher percentage looked negative toward their sexual encounters as a child with grown ups, mostly due to incest relations. While the relations of the boys were usually with adults from the neighborhood and not with family members. Would the percentage of positive experienced relations be higher without the taboo? I guess that would be the case.
In the mass media there is not a debate about the harmfulness of pedosexual relations. They seem to know that it is always harmful and life destroying for the minors involved. They lie collectively, like they did with the homosexuals before. Adults who are caught disobeying the sex laws are punished and a lot of the times forced to treatment. The psychologists and so on that treat those people do this without the proof of harm-doing by the adult. They used to treat homosexuals. They destroyed their lives. What was the justification at that time for doing so? There was no justification and their treatment wasn't based on science either. I believe those doctors should have brought to justice. Now the guys from the treatment industry didn't learn a single thing from the past.
Jules Mulder used to be head of De Waag. De Waag is a treatment center for people that watched children having sex or people that had a sexual relation with a minor. Mulder once said in public that right now we live in conservative times and that maybe in the future the age of consent would be set on 12 years, not lower. That's what he said. But De Waag treats also those who had sex with a 15-year-old. Once he said that pedo-activists who tell that research showed that sex mostly isn't harmful forgot to mention that one third of the boys who had experienced such a relation were harmed by it. That is not the truth. Mulder mixes a negative experience (1/3) with harm, but harm was almost non-existent in that research (Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman). Martijn Association, a banned pedophile organization, once contacted by email all the De Waag institutes with the question if they could prove the harm done by these kind of relationships. Non of them responded. In the media a couple of times Mulder said that he once had a client/patient that insisted he had done nothing wrong. But in the end he saw the harm he did to the child. That is the only explanation he ever does give why the treatment is a good thing. As if that person could not lie to him, saying in the end what Mulder wanted to hear, hoping to get rid of him sooner. Or maybe this guy was an exception, that what he did was wrong but other relations were not harmful. Everything is possible. You must proof the harmfulness with scientific research only! Not researchers that asked in women's magazines for 'victims of child sexual abuse' to respond and after the research they only found people calling themselves victims. Or asking patients of psychiatrists 'did you ever had sex in your childhood with an older person' and then conclude that many patients were now in treatment because of that encounter. That is not how scientific research is done. You search for people with the experience and people without the experience and all other influences must be as equal as possible. Otherwise you cannot compare the results. In those cases harm usually disappears totally. Also due to the broad definitions of abuse in many researches. A kid having sex with a kid slightly older, every sexual touching, wanted or not, sometimes even a supposed sexual look from an adult is considered abuse. The chance that you will be harmed by that look and that it will destroy your life, that you cannot have healthy relations with others, that you will become a psychiatric patient because of such of supposed look is almost nil. But in many researches they count as strongly as a child being raped. The less real rape victims in such a study the less harm you will find of course. And many researchers will not make this much needed differentiation because they want to 'proof' that all sex is harmful when you are young. Jules Mulder by the way also was in favor against the right for Martijn Association to exist. He is afraid for the truth. Or he's just being a conformist.
A sexologist called Erik van Beek wrote in 2012 an article in a leading Dutch magazine about sexuality. He stated that sex with minors is always wrong. The only reason he gave was the power difference in such relationships. Why a power difference has to lead to harm I don't understand but more important: there is no proof for it. Another sexologist, Jelto Drenth, responded to this article and wrote that we must not make the same mistakes as with the homosexuals. Drenth argued that the proof of harm was not there. He made his statement with the Rind research and - far less scientific - with some examples of people who had experienced such a relation as positive. Van Beek responded to Drenth without any facts but only that he always had respected Drenth but that this article of him was very bad. Both Van Beek's articles were in no way scientific at all, only conformism. Conformism with the leading public opinion.
People like Erik van Beek en Jules Mulder are liars.
Frans Gieles, a retired ortho-pedagogue, has for decades a monthly meeting with pedophiles. This group is called JON and oparates under the flag of the NVSH (Dutch Society for Sexual Reform). Pedophiles used to come to him just to meet other pedophiles. So they were not alone, so they finally could talk freely about anything they wanted to without any pressure or fear. Gieles thought the sex laws were wrong and was advocating reform. Years later when repression grew even stronger, he sort of changed his group like it was a therapy group for pedophiles to help them to respect the laws. Talking in public about law change is not productive he told me quite often. And: fighting against society is wrong; we must build bridges. A friend of mine, Norbert de Jonge, used to go to these JON-meetings. He did so until one day he read an article by Frans Gieles calling all the 'members' of this JON-group his patients. De Jonge said: well if I'm a patient of yours I'll leave, and he never visited anymore. Gieles once wrote an article about the recidivism rate of his 'patients'. What was the case, some members were caught doing illegal things and there was a link to his group in the news. He wrote that the recidivism rate of his members was not higher then the recidivism rate of people treated by official psychologists. His group consisted only of some 20 or 30 members, some coming every month, some once in a while. Making a clear statement with such a small group of people is not very scientific. What also was not very scientific is that he never even asked his members if they had a conviction. He based his 'wrongdoers' only about what he knew (from the media or from self reports by the JON-members).
Nowadays, Frans Gieles is seeking cooperation with Jules Mulder and Erik van Beek. The project is still in an early phase. An article for a leading Dutch newspaper about this is in the making I heard. Cooperation, so that pedophiles can be redirected to each other, if necessary. Some exceptions who maybe are very much in need of psychological help can be 'turned over' to the professionals and the professionals can also say to some of their 'patients': you can also visit the JON-group. There are now two JON-groups, one in the east and one in the west of The Netherlands.
Colleagues of Mulder and Van Beek are blaming them for their contacts with the JON-groups. I on the other hand blame Frans Gieles for his cooperation with Mulder and Van Beek. I once talked with Jules Mulder at a conference in front of an audience though, but what Frans is doing, is suggesting that society is right with their sex laws. And that is just a plain lie in which almost nobody believes. People want strongly to believe this but that's not the same. That's why society is trying to push people telling the truth over the cliff or ignoring them as much as possible. The truth has patience; I wished she would hurry though. It's always better for a society to respect the truth. A lot of unnecessarily harm can then be prevented. But like I said, most people choose to lie. NAMBLA rightfully stated: 'Find the truth... tell it'.
3 June 2016
Added 16 August 2017: Two reactions by Frans Gieles about the Rind study concerning harm in adult-child sexual relationships and his second reaction about the JON group.
Reaction 1 by Frans Gieles: Concerning the Bruce Rind study
Reaction 2 by Frans Gieles: Concerning his JON group