Legalization of Pedophilia
- Post by: Nicole M. King
- January 23, 2014
The Wave of the Future?
In late October of 2013, conservative news sources became aware that in its newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5), the American Psychological Association had labeled pedophilia an “orientation” instead of a “disorder.” The APA quickly backpedaled, claiming in an October 31 press release, “‘Sexual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”
The statement continued to note that the APA considered pedophilia to be a “paraphilia,” and that the supposed blooper would be corrected in the next printing of the DSM-5. An APA factsheet on the DSM-5 new definition, “paraphilias,” however, should give pause:
Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder. To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, or
have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.
To further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder, the Work Group revised the names of these disorders to differentiate between the behavior itself and the disorder stemming from that behavior. . . . It is a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder.
This definition is tortured for a reason: the APA, and many other similar bodies, are well on their way to acceptance of the once unthinkable act of adult sex with a child. Pedophilia, it seems, is classified as a “disorder” because it involves “another person’s psychological distress” and “a desire for sexual behaviors involving . . . persons unable to give legal consent.” Change the laws regarding legal consent, however, or discover that pedophilia does not mean a child’s “psychological distress,” and pedophilia becomes merely another “paraphilia”—an atypical, but fully justified and legal, sexual “interest.”
Lately, more and more journalists are beginning to wonder aloud about precisely those loopholes. The august publication The Atlantic recently penned not one but two editorials on pedophilia: “I, Pedophile,” a sympathetic first-person account by a sex offender, and an interview with Professor James Cantor, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, entitled “What Can Be Done About Pedophilia?” Both articles try to give a more nuanced, kinder view of pedophilia than the public has seen in some time. The overriding theme in both is that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a “wired” desire. Pedophiles cannot help their desire to have sex with children any more than a heterosexual man can help being attracted to a beautiful woman walking down the street. Cantor claims, “People can learn self-control, people can take sex-drive-reducing medications, and people can learn how to live more healthy and productive lives, but we do not appear to be able to change the pedophilia itself.” Similar views have appeared in academic publications. In a 2012 piece for the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, Michael Seto examines whether it is fair to label pedophilia a “sexual orientation.” He concludes that “pedophilia can be viewed as a sexual age orientation based on the more limited evidence available regarding its age of onset, associations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time.”
All of the above authors, however, shy clear of saying that pedophilia should be normalized. It is damaging to children, they still hold, and also illegal, and so although other “orientations” may be acted upon, pedophilia must be treated and stifled. But others deny such claims. Recent news pieces attempt to raise doubts about what have long been accepted as truths regarding pedophilia. In a widely cited January 2013 piece in The Guardian, Jon Henley writes that it is “surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject [of paedophilia]. . . . There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.” Similarly, Alan Zarembo writes in the Los Angeles Times, “In searching for causes of pedophilia, researchers have largely dismissed the popular belief that abuse in childhood plays an important role. Studies show that few victims grow up to be abusers, and only about a third of offenders say they were molested. . . ”
Attention has also been drawn recently to the United States’ age of consent laws, which define the age at which a teenager (generally 16-18) is considered legally able to consent to sexual relations with an older adult, or even with a peer. Jacob Appel at The Huffington Post recently opined, “These draconian and puritanical laws are largely the product of a conservative political culture that has transformed the fight against child molestation into a full-blown war on teenage sexuality. We now live in a moral milieu so toxic and muddled that we lump together as ‘sex offenders’ teenagers who send nude photos to each other with clergyman who rape toddlers.” In addition, the American public is already accustomed to pornographic images of children in the media, and organizations like the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) are pushing for increased sexual “rights” of children and adolescents.
The combination of research demonstrating that pedophilia is a hard-wired sexual “orientation,” sympathetic media portrayals of the “poor pedophile” who can never act on his desires, pushes to lower the legal age of consent, and increasing sexualization of children by both the media and the law is proving to be a deadly mixture. We are slowly, gradually, and without realizing it, drawing ever nearer to social and legal acceptance of pedophilia.
Pedophilia and Age of Consent: A Historical Overview
The practice of sex with children dates back, unfortunately, to about the beginning of recorded history. The ancient Greeks are well known to have engaged in pederasty, a sexual relationship between an adult male and a usually pubescent boy. Pederasty for the Greeks seems to have been something of a rite of passage, a way in which boys were ushered into the adult warrior world.
The concept of an “age of consent,” though possibly prevalent in informal arrangements, first appears in written law in 1275 in England. This law made it illegal to “ravish” a girl “within age,” with the understanding that a girl under the age of 12 (the age of marriage) could not give “consent” to sexual relations. Other European nations and the American colonies began writing age of consent into their legal codes near the end of the eighteenth century, with most choosing between 11 and 13, to correspond with the onset of puberty. The Church had long agreed with this age range. At the Council of Trent (1563), the age of marriage was introduced—12 for girls and 14 for boys. (Betrothals could be conducted at much younger ages, particularly for wealthy families, but it was generally understood that such betrothals would not result in sexual unions until both parties were of age.)
Pushes to raise the age of consent first appeared at the end of the 18th century, prompted by concerns over child prostitution. In Britain, one major influence was reformer W.T. Stead’s series of articles entitled “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon” and published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885. In this long series, Stead dramatically depicted the myth of the defeated Athenians who were forced to offer up “seven youths and seven maidens” to Crete every nine years to be sacrificed to the Minotaur, “a frightful monster, half man, half bull, the foul product of an unnatural lust.” Stead’s eloquent account urged his fellow-citizens to consider the ages of the girls thus “sacrificed”:
The maw of the London Minotaur is insatiable, and none that go into the secret recesses of his lair return again. . . . London’s lust annually uses up many thousands of women, who are literally killed and made away with–living sacrifices slain in the service of vice. That may be inevitable, and with that I have nothing to do. But I do ask that those doomed to the house of evil fame shall not be trapped into it unwillingly, and that none shall be beguiled into the chamber of death before they are of an age to read the inscription above the portal–“All hope abandon ye who enter here.” If the daughters of the people must be served up as dainty morsels to minister to the passions of the rich, let them at least attain an age when they can understand the nature of the sacrifice which they are asked to make. And if we must cast maidens–not seven, but seven times seven–nightly into the jaws of vice, let us at least see to it that they assent to their own immolation, and are not unwilling sacrifices procured by force and fraud.
Stead’s writing produced such an outcry that British legislators raised the age of consent to 16, and the move encouraged reformers in the U.S. to do likewise. By 1920, the age of consent for actual sexual intercourse throughout Britain and America had generally been raised to the ages of 16-18, ages which also corresponded to increased public understanding of psychological development.
These laws have held to the present day, but the profound moral turmoil of the twentieth century has kept them ever in debate. In his history of age-of-consent legislation, Stephen Robertson writes, for example, that part of the social upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution was increased sexual independence of young women:
Characterized by growing economic, social, and cultural independence, girls in their teens assumed a place in western societies quite distinct from that of younger children. New concepts of adolescence and specifically of girlhood normalized sexual activity during the teenage years, at least within peer groups, as ‘sex play’ necessary to achieve adult heterosexuality.
Robertson also points out that until the latter half of the twentieth century, most age of consent laws were concerned primarily with protecting young girls from older men, but by the 1970s, feminist reforms in rape law had expanded such definitions to include boys. (Until that point, boys were more likely to be considered sexual aggressors, regardless of age, instead of victims.) Increasingly, states have written into their legal codes more specific language as to which sexual acts are permissible between which genders, at which ages. With the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws across the nation, the path was made clear to make consensual homosexual sex and heterosexual sex equal before the law, thus also laying the groundwork for age of consent laws to apply more uniformly to both girls and boys.
But long before Lawrence v. Texas, Alfred Kinsey and his researchers were laying the groundwork to roll back all age-of-consent legislation in the U.S. When he released Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, Kinsey was hailed for going where no researcher had dared to tread before—the private sex lives of Americans. Kinsey proclaimed the goal of his work was “an attempt to accumulate an objectively determined body of fact which strictly avoids social or moral interpretations of the fact.” Kinsey may have claimed scientific objectivity, but his critics quickly pointed out that his work fell far short of a good exercise of the scientific method. Most notable was that, as The Kinsey Institute (Kinsey’s legacy at Indiana University) admits in a historical summary of the Kinsey reports, Kinsey relied on volunteer interviewees and “did not believe a random sample was possible.” He also used a larger-than-representative number of homosexuals, bisexuals, prostitutes, and convicts, thereby skewing his data towards atypical sexual behavior.
Even more damning, however, are accusations that Kinsey twisted data to make childhood sexual activity seem “normal.” In the methodology section of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey and his research partners outline their tactics for interviewing “younger” children (younger than twelve, but especially younger than eight):
The technique is one in which the interviewer looks at dolls, at toys of other sorts, joins in games, builds picture puzzles, romps and does acrobatics with the vigorous small boy, tells stories, reads stories, gets the child to tell stories, draws pictures, gets the child to draw pictures, shares candies and cookies, and withal makes himself an agreeable guest. Tucked into these activities are questions that give information on the child’s sexual background. If the picture book shows kittens putting on nightgowns for bed, the child may be asked whether she wears nightgowns when she goes to bed. When the interviewer tussles with the four-year-old boy, he may ask him whether he similarly tussles with the other boys in the neighborhood, and rapidly follows up with questions concerning tussling with the girls, whether he plays with any girls, whether he likes girls, whether he kisses girls.
Even more disturbing than this undeniably creepy interview process is Kinsey’s “evidence” presented in Part II, particularly the subhead entitled “Pre-adolescent Orgasm.” The infamous Tables 31 through 34 document the numbers of babies and young boys who had “experienced” orgasm, the number of orgasms they experienced, and the length of the orgasm. The youngest of these children was two months old, but Kinsey includes 28 children in the “Up to 1 yr.” category. Kinsey claimed that the information in these categories came from interviews with children, parents and teachers who had observed children, and adults who remembered their own experiences. In responding to allegations that Kinsey actually paid pedophiles to abuse children and record their experiences, The Kinsey Institute responded, “ . . . Kinsey stated that there were nine men who [sic] he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.” John Bancroft, former director of The Kinsey Institute, examines the problem more fully in a reprint of Sexuality and the Human Female (Kinsey’s sequel to Sexuality and the Human Male). He believes that Kinsey was particularly impressed with the records of one man, who recorded in extensive detail all of his sexual encounters (with men, women, and children). Bancroft also observes that Kinsey was “intrigued by the various ways in which orgasm was experienced,” and outlined six different ways that both adults and children express orgasm. Two of these involve sobbing or other signs of distress, and Bancroft notes, “As these descriptions were applied to pre-adolescent boys as well as adults, they have been taken by some to indicate that these children were being tortured. . . . In retrospect Kinsey’s judgment in not anticipating such misinterpretations, and in placing so much emphasis on this one man’s evidence, can be questioned.” Indeed.
But no matter how suspect Kinsey’s sources, or how much he seems to have twisted his data, or how very perverse his motives, his ideas have nonetheless permeated American society irrevocably. Dr. Judith Reisman, who has written several books investigating Kinsey’s research, writes that her personal motive for her investigation began when her 10-year-old daughter was molested by a 13-year-old boy. When Reisman called an aunt to talk through what had happened to her family, her aunt replied, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. Children are sexual from birth.” Another close friend responded similarly. Riesman blames Kinsey for the way those close to her reacted. “I recognized an ideological ‘party line,’” she writes. “I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey.”
Kinsey’s “research” on child sexual behavior—coupled with a host of other social ills—laid the groundwork for something of a “heyday” for pedophilia in the 1970s. What polite society does not talk about anymore, however, is the fact that the pedophilia heyday was at first aligned with the homosexual-rights movement.
In a 2001 piece in Boston Magazine, Benoit Denizet-Lewis outlined one of the formative events of this period. In June 1977, police arrested the owner of a house in Revere, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. The home had been a center of drugs, booze, sex, and prostitution between men and boys for some time, and the initial arrest led to the indictments of 24 men. Shortly after that, two groups emerged to fight the prosecution of these men. One was the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), still one of the larger gay-rights advocacy groups. The other was the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA.
It’s a story that began unremarkably enough. In 1978, NAMBLA was just another oddball sexual group proposing another oddball, radical philosophy: Kids should have more rights, particularly the right to have sex with whomever they please. Age should not be a consideration in anything, especially sex and love, and age-of-consent laws should be repealed. It was a more permissive time, a time before AIDS, and during NAMBLA’s infancy in Boston (it would later move its headquarters to New York), the group enjoyed the support of a vocal minority in the gay community, who believed that attacks on boy-lovers were veiled attacks on all homosexuals. To NAMBLA’s greater surprise, it found that even many straight people were willing to discuss adult-youth relationships without resorting to name calling and finger wagging.
Then, the tide began to turn, and members of NAMBLA claim to have been ousted by the homosexual community. David Thorstad, co-founder of NAMBLA, wrote a detailed 1991 history of the relationship between the homosexual and pedophilic movements in which he argued that singer Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign, coupled with “a new hysteria about ‘kiddie porn,’” made it convenient for the homosexual community to distance itself organizations like NAMBLA. While initially, homosexual-rights groups and advocates for pedophilia had participated in the same marches and even had come to each other’s defense against attack, homosexual activists discovered that this approach did them no favors. Thorstad writes, “In the era of AIDS, [the gay movement] has de-emphasized sex, and seeks to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream. The sexual needs of young people have been devalued. . . ”
This history may seem like something from the distant and backward past, but we are again living in a period in which “the sexual needs of young people” are much touted in legislative bodies and the media alike. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States advocates for adolescent sexual “rights”—to information, sex education, and confidential health services—and actively campaigns against abstinence education, which it claims is ineffective. Girls of any age can now purchase emergency contraception without a prescription. Legislators and activists use the deceptive language of “youth rights” in order to push a radical sexual agenda upon ever-younger children. For example, New York schoolgirls can receive prenatal care or even IUD (intra-uterine device) implants without their parents’ knowledge or consent; public schools in California and Massachusetts have instituted “transgender friendly” policies which encourage boys and girls as young as kindergarten to decide which gender they identify with and, therefore, which bathroom they want to use; and in all U.S. states, girls and boys as young as 14 or even 12 can request confidential testing and treatment for a range of sexually transmitted diseases.
One necessary component to legalizing “intergenerational love,” as NAMBLA calls it, is eliminating the age of consent. The U.S. may not have done so yet, but we are well on our way to it. In addition to the above measures, which encourage “sexual identity” and sexual activity among ever-younger children, we are witnessing media sexualization of children like never before. Illegal child pornography is a huge and often-discussed problem in the United States, but legal and mainstream porn also serves to dampen our sensibilities. In an examination of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, Judith Reisman concluded,
. . . a content analysis of Playboy (N=373), Penthouse (N=184), and Hustler (N=126) magazines, December 1953 to December 1984, yielded 6,004 child images. . . . Nearly two-thirds of the child scenarios were sexual and/or violent; the dominant age bracket 3-11 years; girls more prevalent than boys and most likely associated with adult males; and racial portrayals almost exclusively Caucasian. Close to 1,000 sexual scenarios included children with adults; 80% of the children were actively involved in all scenes; and each magazine portrayed children as unharmed and/or benefited by adult-child sex.
More mainstream examples also exist. Elton John in 1999 stunned audiences at a London gala honoring a homosexual-rights group by including in his performance six teenaged strippers dressed as Cub Scouts. And we have all seen some of the more controversial Calvin Klein ads featuring scantily dressed children in adult situations.
The recent repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the corresponding state rush to legalize homosexual “marriage” may also prove to be fodder for those arguing for the legalization of pedophilia. Even so long ago as 1999, in an article that cost the University of Missouri-Kansas City about $100,000 of government funding, Professor Harris Mirkin compares pedophilia with the civil-rights, feminist, and gay-rights movements. Mirkin asserts, “black theorists argue that black culture and life was largely invisible to both blacks and whites in the pre-civil rights period, feminist theorists claim that male categories marginalized and deligitimatized women, homosexuals were ridiculed and dismissed in the 1950s, and pedophiles are vilified today.” Mirkin also highlights the crucial role that the DSM-III definition of “homosexuality” played in bringing about a change of view:
A stunning event in the transformation of the social evaluation of homosexuality, and a signal that the ideological battle was moving into Phase II, was the reversal of the psychiatric diagnoses. Prior to the adoption of DSM III in 1973 homosexuality was classified as a disease, and homosexuals were viewed as thwarted individuals who emerged from families with weak fathers and overpowering mothers. DSM III reflected a dramatically different view. Homosexuals were no longer “inverts” with unhealthy or immature personality traits, just as their families were no longer considered dysfunctional.
Even more reason to be suspicious of the American Psychiatric Association’s recent “mistake.”
The Future of the Debate
Those advocating for lowering the age of consent to include adolescents or even children argue that, as Henley wrote in the 2013 Guardian piece, “There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.” Actions between “consenting” adults and children, such writers and scholars argue, may not in fact do damage.
A host of studies demonstrates the opposite. In a thorough review of medical reports concerning pedophilia, John R. Hughes concludes, “However, there is no controversy about the great psychological harm done to the victims of these [pedophilic] crimes.” Emotional abuse in conjunction with sexual abuse have been discovered to be “good predictors of later poor mental health and also later interest . . . in committing child sexual abuse.” Other studies have found that child sexual abuse leads to developmental problems, anorexia nervosa, desensitization to touch, a minimization of “the concept of violence,” and even brain abnormalities that impact sexual desire and behavior.
Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence indicating that pedophilia causes harm is that its victims become sexual abusers and pedophiles themselves at a much, much higher rate. In one study covered by Hughes, “When pedophiles and healthy males were compared, 60% of the former and only 4% of the latter had been abused as a child.” Similarly, adolescents and children who abuse other children also tend to be victims of abuse themselves. When juvenile sexual abusers were compared to “nonabusing delinquents,” “[s]ignificantly more juvenile sexual abusers reported having been sexually abused . . . (69.6%) than their nonsexually abusing counterparts (39.6%) . . . ”
Although having been abused as a child is not necessarily a predictor of later sexual abuse—all studies are quick to point out that “most victims of sex abuse do not become later abusers”—a large percentage of those who do abuse children did, in fact, themselves suffer sexual abuse as children. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, there is also some evidence that the perpetrators of child abuse come overwhelmingly from abusive or broken homes, even when they did not suffer specifically sexual abuse. In a largely narrative inquiry of 23 sexual offenders, Sandra Thomas et al. discovered four general narrative motifs in the childhood histories of sexual offenders against children: “There Was No Love,” “Love Left,” “Love Was Conflated With Sex,” and “A Pretty Good Childhood.” Woven throughout all of these themes (even “A Pretty Good Childhood,” in which half of the subjects did not grow up with two biological parents) were stories of parents being emotionally or physically absent through death, divorce, separation, mental instability, or substance abuse. Thomas concludes, “ . . . unrequited longing for a loving father was . . . strongly evident in our data. The role of a father’s love and the impact of his level of involvement in a child’s life are striking.”
If pedophilia is a “normal” orientation, only one option from the spectrum of sexual choices, why is it that pedophiles overwhelmingly have suffered sexual abuse as a child or are from broken or otherwise painful home environments? In short, why do pedophiles themselves seem to come from “damaged” backgrounds? The only logical answer is that pedophilia is, in fact, highly damaging to children. But the combination of ever-lower ages of sexual involvement, increasingly sexual images of children in media outlets, and media arguments for more sympathetic portrayal of pedophilia is proving a deadly mixture. American parents, citizens, and policymakers must make a concerted effort if we are to keep pedophilia classified as a crime.
First, we must be constantly vigilant over our children. The push for the legalization of pedophilia operates on two fronts: first, a softening of pedophiles’ images through arguments that they “cannot help” their attractions and that pedophilia is not necessarily damaging to children; and second, arguments that “children are sexual from birth,” as Kinsey claimed, and thus have “rights” to sex education and full access to a range of medical services without parental notification or permission. Both arguments must be rejected. This means quite a bit of work must be done to reverse policy that encourages schools and healthcare practitioners to treat children for STDs, prescribe hormonal birth control, and hand out condoms without parental consent. Such a reversal is not likely in the near future, but parents can do their part by carefully investigating school policies and removing their children from schools that refuse to comply with their wishes. Eventually, both the home-schooling and grassroots private-school movements are bound to have a significant impact. As Wendell Berry writes in The Unsettling of America, the most effective change comes not from within a system but “from the margins.”
Second, we must continue to insist that pedophilia be classified as a mental disorder, a disease, and an evil. The public outcry over the APA’s reclassification of pedophilia is good news. Most people, thankfully, still think that those adults who sexually abuse children should not be lumped together with those adults who act on atypical sexual desires with other adults. If we are to protect our children, we must insist that pedophilia be treated like other potentially “hard-wired” but inherently damaging behaviors, such as alcohol or substance abuse.
Third, we should be suspect of those who promote complete sexual “freedom”—including homosexuality, polyamory, or any other sexual combination—who then say that in like manner, children and adults should have the freedom to have consenting, loving relationships. Or, put another way, we must remember to value what it is to be a child. A fundamental difference exists between children’s and adults’ abilities to understand behavioral risks and make appropriate choices, and such activists are working to obscure that difference. Homosexuality, polyamory, and other such behaviors involve consenting adults; pedophilia involves a willing adult and an emotionally and mentally impressionable child.
With continued vigilance, we might still be able to protect our children.
Nicole M. King is Managing Editor of The Family in America.
 “American Psychiatric Association Now Classifies Pedophilia as Sexual Orientation Vs. Disorder,” American Family Association Press Release, October 30, 2013, Web.
 “APA Statement on DSM-5 Text Error,” American Psychiatric Association Press Release, October 31, 2013, Web.
 “Paraphilic Disorders,” American Psychiatric Publishing factsheet, 2013, Web.
 David Goldberg, “I, Pedophile,” The Atlantic, August 26, 2013, Web.
 Alice Dreger, “What Can Be Done About Pedophilia?” The Atlantic, August 26, 2013, Web.
 Michael C. Seto, “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 41 (2012): 233.
 Jon Henley, “Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires to Light,” The Guardian, January 3, 2013, Web.
 Alan Zarembo, “Many Researchers Taking a Different View of Pedophilia,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14, 2013, Web.
 Jacob M. Appel, “Embracing Teenage Sexuality: Let’s Rethink the Age of Consent,” Huffington Post, Dec. 4, 2013, Web.
 Stephen Robertson, “Age of Consent Laws,” in Children & Youth in History, Item #230, availble at http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230, accessed Dec. 4, 2013.
 Vern L. Bullough, “Age of Consent,” Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 16 (2005): 31.
 Robertson, “Age of Consent Laws,” 2.
 W.T. Stead, “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon I: the Report of our Secret Commission,” originally in Pall Mall Gazette, July 6, 1885, at http://www.attackingthedevil.co.uk/pmg/tribute/mt1.php, accessed Dec. 6, 2013.
 Stead, “Maiden Tribute.”
 Robertson, “Age of Consent Laws.”
 Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1948), 5.
 The Kinsey Institute, “Data from Alfred Kinsey’s Studies,” Web, accessed December 17, 2013.
 Melissa G. Pardue, “The Kinsey Whitewash,” The Heritage Foundation, Web., Feb. 9, 2005.
 Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior, 58.
 Ibid., 175-80.
 Ibid., 177.
 Cf. Judith Reisman et al., Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Layfayette, LA: Lochinvar, Inc., 1990).
 “Allegations About Childhood Data in the 1949 Book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” The Kinsey Institute, Web, accessed Dec. 17, 2013.
 John Bancroft, “Kinsey and Children,” excerpted from “Alfred Kinsey’s Work 50 Years Later,” in Alfred Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998 reprint edition), j-n.
 Judith A. Reisman, “Journey: A Personal Odyssey to the Truth,” available at www.Dr.JudithReisman.com, accessed Dec. 7, 2013.
 Benoit Denizet-Lewis, “Boy Crazy,” Boston Magazine, May 2001, Web.
 Denizet-Lewis, “Boy Crazy.”
 David Thorstad, “Man/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement,” in Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspectives, eds. Theo Sandfort, Edward Brongersma, and Alex van Naerssen (New York: Routledge, 1990), 251-74.
 Ibid., 252.
 For coverage of SIECUS and the language of “youth rights,” see Mary Rice Hasson, “Liberals Won’t and Don’t Need to ‘Collectivize’ Your Kids: ‘Youth Rights’ and the Shrinking Power of Parents,” The Family in America 27.4 (fall 2013): 290-308.
 “Judge Allows Emergency Contraception for Teen Girls,” CBN News, June 6, 2013, Web.
 For these and others, see Hasson, “Liberals Won’t and Don’t Need to ‘Collectivize’ Your Kids.”
 Judith A. Reisman, “Images of Children, Crime & Violence in Playboy, Penthouse & Hustler,” 1989, U.S. Dpt of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Grant No. 84-JN-AX-K007, Web.
 Julie Foster, “Elton John Seduces ‘Cub Scouts,’ WND News, December 1, 1999, Web.
 Louis Menand, “Silly Ideas,” The New Yorker, May 13, 2002, Web.
 Harris Mirkin, “The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia,” Journal of Homosexuality 37.2 (1999): 7.
 Mirkin, “Pattern of Sexual Politics.”
 John R. Hughes, “Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia,” Clinical Pediatrics 46.8 (2007): 677, emphasis added.
 J. Franken, “Treatment of Incest Perpetrators: A Five-Phase Model,” Child Abuse and Neglect 18 (1994): 357-65. Cited in Hughes, “Review of Medical Reports,” 670.
 Hughes, “Review of Medical Reports,” 670.
 L.J. Cohen et al., “Childhood Sexual History of 20 Male Pedophiles vs. 24 Male Healthy Control Subjects,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 190 (2002): 757-66. Cited in Hughes, “Review of Medical Reports,” 672.
 David L. Burton, “An Exploratory Evaluation of the Contribution of Personality and Childhood Sexual Victimization to the Development of Sexually Abusive Behavior,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 20 (2008): 108.
 Hughes, “Review of Medical Reports,” 672.
 Sandra P. Thomas et al., “Childhood Experiences of Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse,” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 49 (2013): 187-201.
 Thomas, “Childhood Experiences of Perpetrators,” 197.
 Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996), 174.