Dear fellow pedophile,

Last year I became involved with an academic research project named “MAA Daily Lives”. It consists of a research team of three professors, a steering committee of pedophiles with experience and skill to contribute to the project, and a participant committee that numbered eight pedophiles when the research was scheduled to occur in July of this year. In about May of this year, the ethics committee of the University backing the research withdrew their support of the project. The project had counsel, and at the point the lawyers got involved, the project stalled. The primary issue was whether the Marion County Prosecutor or Indiana State Attorney General could conceivably file charges against the research team to disrupt the research and prevent its publication. A former prosecutor from the Marion County Prosecutor’s office offered his legal opinion to the foreign University’s ethical committee that this was not a justified fear. but to no avail.

My instinct was that this occurred because of the individual prejudices of a few people on that committee. I had a long conversation this morning with the head researcher for the project, and learned the obstacles facing the project. Attitudes have softened, partly because of the diligence of a few people involved in presenting our case for humane treatment, and the importance of research that accurately reflects our natures -- a race that is primarily non-violent, peace-loving, and whom are essentially decent people. Those we love do not respect violent tendencies, because it scares them, and by-and-large, we -- as a people -- have transcended the morality of the violent and larger culture we live in. It is no small statement to say that we are misunderstood.

Concerns about this project with respect to impartiality were raised early on by people involved in the project from our community, and are by no means resolved. I think the best characterization of the circumstance is to say that both sides are proceeding on the basis of good faith. I believe to the best of my knowledge and experience that the research team is trustworthy. The researcher needs some preliminary data to focus her presentation. It will not be used in the final data-set. The caveat is I have not been particularly accessible, and so the time-frame is one day to provide her with some data. I ask you to consider filling this questionnaire out, don’t answer what you don’t want, do your best at it, and offer suggestions that you think might be useful to the research team. I would like to be able to provide the research team with three or four completed sets of interview questions for use at a Monday conference on the matter. Please e-mail it to me at the address above.

I believe strongly in the importance of generating academic interest in conducting impartial research into the nature of our condition. I know with certainty that it will only benefit us. There is an upcoming issue that we, as a community, have a chance to affect for our own betterment. The American Psychiatric Association (“APA”), comprised of medical doctors practicing psychiatry, intends to publish the Diagnostic and and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version V, in 2010. It will be an extensive revision of the current DSM-TR-IV. As you may know, in the current DSM definition of “pedophiles” (§ 302.2), most of us do not quality as mentally disordered. The working committee for paraphilias is currently being constituted and will begin their work next year. I have gained a good deal of insight into the internal politics of the APA, partly through an APA member who was directly responsible for removal of homosexuality from the DSM in the 1970’s and who testified at a trial I am currently party to which argues my unfitness as a parent based on my pedophilia. We do not have the means to employ the strategy that was effective for homosexual activists back then -- public demonstrations during the APA’s committee meetings.

My conversations with people who are members of that organization lead me to believe that they are men and women with inquisitive and honest minds who do not seek to harm others. At one time, I felt that Dr. Gene Able -- who sells a proprietary visual-stimulus machine similar to the plythysmograph -- was simply on a witch-hunt against us and motivated by profit. Now I think that if science showed him to be wrong, he could concede his positions that result in our persecution. And thus, similarly with all the decisions makers within the APA. I do not believe this to be true at all of the “other” APA - the American Psychological Association, comprised of doctored researchers and clinicians of psychology. I believe that organization is in bed with Washington and I can present strong factual arguments to that effect. Physicians would not have so readily acquiesced to Congressional denunciation of their expertise, nor would Congress have been so eager to attack such a politically potent constituency.

The working committee on the new DSM definition for pedophilia is currently going to go against us, bringing the APA definition in line with the United Nations-sponsored International Classification of Disease. The ICD defines the condition as being simply one carrying sexual attraction to children. The ICD is not, however, used in the same fashion internationally as a basis for legislation as the DSM is in the United States. A revised DSM definition covering all minor-attracted individuals and defining them as "mentally disordered" will provide a firm scientific basis for legislative persecution of pedophiles. It is a dangerous development to our race. It is conceivable that within the next few years, we turn the tide within the APA and see the removal of 302.2 from the DSM.

Love,

Kevin Brown
Indianapolis, Indiana