- The Washington Times - Saturday, June 21, 2003

Scientific paper on pedophilia misrepresented

In response to the editorial that appeared in The Washington Times on Thursday, “The APA gets it right,” concerning the paper we presented at the American Psychiatric Associations symposium, we believe the editorial writers insinuations on our position on child sexual abuse are wrong.

We were extremely dismayed that the scientific paper we wrote in 2002 and which remains in press has been quoted out of context and in a deliberately misleading fashion. Our stance has been misrepresented. Our article has not been released as yet, and the excerpts that have been posted without the publishers consent in various media are a violation of copyright.

The excerpts posted suggest that we are in favor of child sexual abuse. That is diametrically opposed to our actual position. We believe that anyone who sexually abuses children has committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The claim that the perpetrator suffers from a mental disorder should in no way be used as a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” If perpetrators request mental health services while they are in prison in order to prevent further crimes upon their release, it is our hope that they will receive such services, regardless of the official diagnostic nomenclature.

The following paragraph appeared on page 21 of our paper. It is striking that these statements were selectively omitted from the excerpts released in the media recently and from The Times editorial.

“We would argue that the removal of pedophilia from the [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] would focus attention on the criminal aspect of these acts, and not allow the perpetrators to claim mental illness as a defense or use it to mitigate responsibility for their crimes. Individuals convicted of these crimes should be punished as provided by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred.”

Please ensure that our position is represented fairly and that our words are cited accurately in your coverage of this “debate.”


University of Ottawa



Professor of sexology

Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

San Francisco

True conservative values

In an online Commentary published Friday in The Washington Times (“Time to face facts, gays gain victory”), National Review writer Jonah Goldberg says that the homosexuals have all but won the culture war and that it is time for social conservatives to make the best of what they consider a bad situation.

Mr. Goldberg is, indeed, not a social conservative or any kind of conservative at all since (in my opinion) conservatism is associated with clear logical thinking. No clear-thinking person believes that the homosexual sexual ethic and that of the family-based society can peacefully coexist. The opposing presuppositions about sexuality, marriage, family and culture inherent in these world views are contradictory and mutually exclusive. One must prevail at the expense of the other.

Mr. Goldberg, therefore, is not a well-intentioned Neville Chamberlain seeking to placate the implacable. At best, he is one of the traitorous Vichy French, sympathetic to the conquering invader. At worst, he is Tokyo Rose, an enemy feigning friendship and sympathy to better undermine the morale of our troops.

Mr. Goldbergs own banner is not the white flag of surrender, but the rainbow flag of multiculturalism. The homosexual movement has, indeed, made great gains in the recent past and expects even greater victories in the near future. Things look grim for the natural family in America.

Yet, capitulation to a new pan-social homosexual mind-set would be cultural suicide. The homosexual movement in a society is analogous to the AIDS virus in the human body: It is not benign but destructive; it thrives at the expense of the host, and youre most likely to get it by saying yes to sodomy. The best way to avoid it is through abstinence until lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Mr. Goldberg wants us all to say yes to sodomy, much as the French said yes to Nazism and for the same unprincipled reason the desire to be on the winning side. I, for one, would rather go down fighting for what is right namely, the protection of the critically important unit on which our society, and all societies, are built the natural family.

Viva la resistance.



Pro-Family Law Center

Sacramento, Calif.

Times wrong to attack diplomat

In last Sundays editorial, “The Foggy Bottom mindset,” your editors very wrongly criticized U.S. Ambassador to Turkey W. Robert Pearson, a diplomat of the highest skill and integrity.

I recruited Mr. Pearson to be deputy chief of mission in Paris when I was American ambassador to France because I needed a top policy expert who had knowledge and discipline but wasnt afraid to think independently and act boldly. He did so in a number of nontraditional areas.

We created a model for reshaping big embassies that served American interests throughout France at lower cost and greater efficiency, and was strongly endorsed by both Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican. We created structures to link French and American business more closely in order to generate more economic growth. Mr. Pearsons leadership in changing a complex system was key to our success.

I also know Mr. Pearson to be completely loyal to the president and to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The Times does him a serious injustice by questioning his commitment to President Bushs agenda. What you say of the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, is true of Mr. Pearson he is a “good career diplomat” and should be so recognized.



Rohatyn Associates LLC

New York

American Survery misses the mark

The Washington Times column, “Gearing up for election 2004” (Op-Ed, Friday), is an excellent example of the axiom “statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics.”

By dividing Democratic support between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democratic candidates, you, of course, made President Bush appear more popular. You also missed the real story of your survey: Fifty percent of the survey respondents would rather spend an hour with a Democrat than with the sitting president, and 54 percent believe a Democrat will win in 2004.

With figures like those, it appears Mr. Bush is the one in trouble.



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide