Hi, Porcelain,

One of the most frequent tactics used against pro-choice MAA's and YList's when discussing this issue is the idea of "long-range psychological effects," or the alleged instances of "emotional problems occurring later in life," both of which are supposedly causally connected to instances of mutually consensual sexual contact with adults when the individuals being analyzed were youths, regardless of whether the discussion is within or outside of the context of the laws and cultural repression.

This card is so often touted because it's near-impossible to make reliable correlations in either direction, so those making these statements on the anti side of the fence are well aware that cultural attitudes will be their support base. It's the equivelant of a Christian arguing for the existence of God against a group of atheists in a devoutly Judeo-Christian society; neither side can offer substantive evidence to prove the other wrong, but WHICH of the two would nevertheless have the advantage in regards to cultural support and synthetic "validation" in that sense? The same with the "long-range psychological consequences" argument; there are just too many factors to consider, and it also pre-supposes that a consensual sexual liason is going to factor into someone's life and psyche far more so than any other of the myriad factors that comprise one's total life experience. This suggestion also reeks of sex negativity, as it suggests that sexual activity has such an overwhelmingly powerful effect on one's growth that it supercedes almost all other aspects, including someone's overall non-sexual social experiences in their youth, economic circumstances, whether they were accepted or vilified by their peers, the nature of their parents (e.g., how much control did they exert or how much freedom did they "allow" the youth in question, what were their parents' religious affiliation, did they push said affiliation on the youths or allow them to follow their own spiritual path more or less unimpeded, what type of education did they receive, what type of crowd dominated said educational institution, what era or decade did the youth grow up in and what type of values predominated, how much did the values of the era contrast with that of the youths' personal beliefs and attitudes, etc., et al.?)...the possible casual factors are numerous if not endless! How do you possibly sift through all of this to come up with an accurate answer in either direction, especially when you consider how many youths who DID NOT have sexual contact with adults will display similar emotional difficulties later in life to those who may indeed have had such sexual contact, including trouble with romantic relationships, divorce, difficulty in getting along with others, etc. ANY ONE of the aforementioned factors, or all of them together, or the absence of some coupled with the presence of others, etc., could be responsible.

Further, does anyone actually expect an OBJECTIVE analysis of this subject in today's political and cultural climate? We have to EXPECT to see research along these lines being slanted in the "anti" direction, especially if the researchers actually want their findings to be published, let alone keeping their jobs! And considering what Judith Levine and Prof. Harris Mirkin went through, not to mention the condemnation given the federal employees who conducted the still controversial Rind study, is it surprising what the general "slant" that the bulk of these research projects will take in order to be considered "acceptable for public consumption" by the powers-that-be who fund such projects, most of whom have a powerful vested interest in preserving the status quo, have a strong desire to be re-elected, and who want to present themselves as being "responsible" to the general public? These factors need to be taken into account, yet all too often they are not, and the worst part of it is that these factors are mostly matters of common sense.

Thank you for yet another incisive post!

Your friend,

--Dissident