Re: Sarah Goode, and the Goode book...?

Nor do I think it would be good research technique for a researcher to state his or her own views before interviewing someone. It seems to me that "neutral" research would require the very act of hiding one's own viewpoint that you seem to be (first assuming, then) berating her for.

Yes, though before I start answering her questions I would like to know if she has mainstream assumptions that she is trying to "prove" or at least pander to. I would have had some questions for this woman in addition to the questions she had for me.

Also, good research doesn't necessarily by definition come to the conclusion that I (or we) held before the research was done, does it? What would it say about open-mindedness to require the conclusions to agree with our original position? I'll judge the research based on the soundness of its logic and reasoning, its use of facts and evidence, and the neutrality of the presentation, not on whether I like the conclusions, and especially not before even seeing it.

But the thing is...contrary to what the general public assumes, we do have a viewpoint that deserves to be considered, and one that is based on basically sound and logical principles. The mainstream view is that we have no legitimate view to consider and that our views are all based on delusion. For instance, is Sarah Goode aware that we have definite proof that our attraction for minors is NOT one-sided, and that there are minors with a physical and emotional preference for significantly older adults? Or will she simply take on the mainstream assumption, that these minors are all affected by emotional problems and are all simply lacking sufficient adult attention at home (which is a common stereotype and assumption on the part of the general public, who do not want to accept the fact that the MAA attraction bases aren't simply one-sided). Why has no journalist yet acknowledged this attraction base by interviewing young teens with a preference for adults? Attempting to "prove" or pander to popular prejudices about the subject will not add up to a "ground-breaking" work like the description claimed. Presenting our side of the story would be a majorly unique book that I would be proud to participate in, even if the author didn't ultimately agree with our views. I don't expect any author in the current political climate to agree with our views out of hand, or to be fully honest about it publicly if they do, but I at least expect them to be kind and respectful to our views and to at least consider that we DO, in fact, have a legitimate view. Levine and Epstein's work fits this criteria; I am not sure if Sarah Goode's does at this point, but the description seemed to suggest otherwise (again, I am reserving further judgement until someone from here reviews the book).