Did I get raped?

Why you chose to implement such a meaningless comment into a exchange of ideas is baffling.

Show me the data.

In 1998, Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman published a meta-analysis of the effects of child sexual abuse using college samples in the Psychological Bulletin. Contradicting the popular view that child sexual abuse inevitably causes severe and long-lasting psychological damage, the authors reported that the relationship between a self-reported history of child sexual abuse and psychopathology was quite weak. They concluded subjects who had been sexually abused were nearly as well-adjusted as those who were not. Their results were similar to earlier studies using community samples (Bauserman & Rind, 1997; Rind & Tromovitch, 1997). In the article, they reported even more provocative findings-that 11% of female and 37% of male respondents retrospectively indicated their short-term reactions to the sexual contact had been positive.

The authors were careful to emphasize that lack of harm doesn't mean the adult-child sexual contact is morally permissible: "If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ... then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness ... [T]he findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or view on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered" (p. 47).

There was no response to the article for several months. Then, what has been called the "political storm of the century for the field of psychology" (Garrison & Kobor, 2002) began.1 The article came to the attention of several conservative groups, including radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger, whose "Dr. Laura" radio show attracts millions of listeners. Dr. Laura criticized the article and its authors as well as the APA (American Psychological Association) for publishing it. She called it "junk science at its worst" and claimed the point of the article was to normalize pedophilia. She even implied that two of the authors traveled over the world to promote adult-child sex (Lilienfeld, 2002b, p. 178).

Schlessinger then urged Congress to take formal action against the APA. Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer of the APA, initially defended the article and the peer review process (Garrison & Kobor, 2002). But Schlessinger, Congress, and others kept up the pressure. It became clear Congress was going to condemn not only the article but the APA. So On June 9, 1999 Dr. Fowler backtracked in a letter to House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay. He now wrote "Clearly, the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare and protection issues." He went on to explain that the APA was seeking an independent expert evaluation of the scientific quality of the article. This was the first time in the APA's 107-year history that it had taken such an action (Lilienfeld, 2002b).

Fowler's capitulation didn't save the APA and Rind and his colleagues from condemnation by Congress. On July 12th, 1999, the United States House of Representatives voted 355 to 0, with 13 members abstaining, to condemn the article's conclusions. Eighteen days later the United States Senate unanimously passed the resolution. It states, in part:

Whereas the Psychological Bulletin has recently published a severely flawed study ... which suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for "willing" children ... Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" [PDF File] that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and "willing" children are less harmful than believed ... [and condemns] any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults — regardless of the child's frame of mind — are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law. (106 Congress, 1st Session, H. Con. Res. 107) ...

This resolution ignores the fact Rind and his colleagues were not the first or only researchers to report not all victims of child sexual abuse suffer serious and lasting psychological damage. Other researchers also report many respondents showed few or no symptoms and found the relationship between adult-child sexual contact and later physical or psychological problems to be highly complex (e.g., Berliner & Conte, 1993; Beitchman, et al, 1991, 1992; Dolezal, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2002; Finkelhor, 1990; Friedrich, Whiteside, & Talley, 2004; Levitt & Pinnell, 1995; Parker & Parker, 1991; Pope & Hudson, 1992; Runtz, 2002; Stander, Olson, & Merrill, 2002).

You lack necessary knowledge of the history surrounding discussion of the issue of rape here on A2K to properly understand the context for my comment. This is not meant to imply a failure on your part, and my comments were not addressed at you - but at those who really should know better.

Quote:

Show me the data.

It was in the rape thread....I am not going to do all that research again, nor attempt to find it.

I figured as much.

It seems as if this topic has been discussed in great length between the parties involved.

"I never said yes." <-That is exactly what makes it rape. Anyone who says otherwise is a rape apologist. Technically, you can't say "No" in your sleep, and for the most part, people don't actually use the word "No" in rejections to anything else. It's always, "I'd love to, but I can't" sort of thing. Why is it expected to be different when it comes to sex?

people don't actually use the word "No" in rejections to anything else. It's always, "I'd love to, but I can't" sort of thing. Why is it expected to be different when it comes to sex?

Lord I was so in the dark about the evilness of this deed that I was in fact grateful to my rapist.

Another insensitive quotation to be put up on the wall of Bill Has No Shame