{"id":1984,"date":"2021-11-08T11:07:50","date_gmt":"2021-11-08T16:07:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aboutpedophilia.com\/?p=1984"},"modified":"2021-11-08T20:51:14","modified_gmt":"2021-11-09T01:51:14","slug":"gene-abel-is-the-poisonous-mushroom-of-child-protection-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aboutpedophilia.com\/2021\/11\/08\/gene-abel-is-the-poisonous-mushroom-of-child-protection-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Gene Abel is the Poisonous Mushroom of Child Protection Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

To minor attracted people, Gene Abel is mostly a name that is hated. In some academic circles, he is still regarded as a hero to modern-day child protection. Most people who are not familiar regard his facts at face value without digging into it. In this article, I want to explain to the average reader why Gene Abel is so problematic not only to minor attracted people, but to the prevention of child sexual abuse as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why a poisonous mushroom? Because that is the effect his work has: It looks pretty and innocent enough, but in reality, it feeds on excrement and poisons those who eat it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This study, which can be found here<\/a> as an excerpt from The Stop Child Molestation Book<\/em>, details a study which was not peer reviewed and was conducted by Gene Abel and his wife, Nora Harlow. Gene Abel is a medical doctor, not a research scientist or research psychologist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essentially, what this study did was surveyed 16,109 adults from age 18 to 95. The sample was not random, the survey questionnaire was one marketed to psychologists with proceeds from the purchase of this survey going to Gene Abel, which then funded this study. In other words, there is an inherent conflict of interest given how it was financed and who conducted it, and the fact that it was not peer-reviewed. However, the largest issue with this study is in its definition of pedophilia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
This criteria for “molesters with pedophilia” is deficient and confuses attraction with behavior.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

To define pedophilia in this manner makes no sense. Child molestation and sexual attraction to children are clearly two separate things, yet this study conflates the two while ignoring non-offending people. They essentially define child molestation acts as enough to diagnose someone as a pedophile, when the reality is not that simple. We know there are people who have sexually abused children for years and have no attraction to them, experts<\/a> from the FBI and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (1992 paper) call them “situational offenders.” They were well known in expert circles by the time this study was published in 2001. Their eventual conclusions, based in part on this definition (based largely on the duration of the molestation), is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The conclusions their study came to<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here, we see a number of issues. We see that they claim that most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. However, actual peer-reviewed research shows a figure closer to one-third (here<\/a>, see footnotes for sources). We see that they claim they “know the characteristics of the child molester” and claim that most molesters were molested themselves (a claim since debunked<\/a>). For any “science” to claim we “know the characteristics of the child molester” is nothing short of ridiculous. Peer-reviewed science, as can be found in any undergraduate<\/em> psychology research methods class, will always say that more study is needed and give suggestions for where to start looking in search of further information. Here, we see a number of issues. We see that they claim that most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. However, reputable peer-reviewed research shows a figure closer to one-third of abusers being pedophiles, not 95% (here<\/a>, see footnotes for sources). While one may be tempted to point out that he says 95% of molestation, this point would not hold to scrutiny if indeed other sources put those who perpetrate it at one-third unless the one-third are mostly serial offenders. We know from research that serial molesters are extremely rare<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We see that they claim they “know the characteristics of the child molester” and claim that most molesters were molested themselves (a claim since debunked<\/a>). For any “science” to claim we “know the characteristics of the child molester” is suspect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peer-reviewed science, as can be found in any undergraduate<\/em> psychology research methods class, will always say that more study is needed and give suggestions for where to start looking in search of further information. It also replicates in other studies. This “study” does not do that. Its methods, and therefore its conclusions, can be safely rejected as fact, truth, and science because it does not follow accepted research standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1987 Abel and Becker Study<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is here I must pause to acknowledge a fantastic resource that originally directed me to uncovering the fraudulent “science” of Gene Abel, an article<\/a> written by Kristofor Xavier with updates from Kamil Beylant. To acknowledge the highlights of the Xavier and Beylant article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full citation of the study in question is: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Sampling bias: There were only 561 participants and 521 subjects, which came not from random sampling but from specific sources that predispose participants to being non-adjudicated offenders.<\/li>
  2. Behavior causes attraction: The paper posits that what someone masturbates to drives what they wind up sexually attracted to. <\/li>
  3. Viewing homosexuality as a paraphilia, not a sexual attraction: The paper views homosexuality not as a sexual orientation, but as a deviant sexual interest.<\/li>
  4. Statistical ineptitude: Xavier and Beylant point out that the statistics knowledge of those writing the paper was hopelessly out of date and their conclusions are therefore flawed.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs,\u2019 by Gene G. Abel, Judith V. Beckerman, Mary Mittelman, Jerry Cunningham-Rathner, Joanne L. Rouleau, and William D. Murphy, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence in 1987, volume 2, pages 3 to 25<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    You can find the full text of this article here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    From my own analysis of the paper, I draw the following conclusions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Treating pedophilia as an act.
      1. The study, at this point, is over 34 years old with the interviews themselves occurring between 36-44 years ago.It is no longer valid, and much research has been done since on the subject with wider, more random samples and using more rigorous research methods.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
      2. Moralized language rather than objective analysis.
        1. Phrases such as “we expected that the subjects would attempt to conceal some of their deviant acts,” and, “whose targets were males,” jump out and indicate not an objective, scientific analysis, but inserting motivations and speculation upon the subjects. How do we know they have deviant acts before interviewing them? Why do we believe they targeted males? Situational offenses do take place among preferential offenders. The purpose of science is to test a hypothesis and gain understanding, not assume it is true and fabricate evidence to prove it.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
        2. Treating pedophilia and paraphilia as a behavior.
          1. Table 1 on page 15 (below) lists pedophilia as an act, along with many other “paraphilias” listed. Today, nobody would bat an eye at some of them. Arousal to odors, homosexuality, “obscene mail,” “obscene phone calling,” etc. They blur the line between attraction\/arousal and behavior.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
          2. They conclude that males are more frequently sexually abused than females.
            1. In reality, meta-analyses puts the prevalence of child sexual abuse among females at around 19% and boys around 8-9% (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>). It is commonly speculated that boys and girls are sexually abused at similar rates, but boys tend to disclose their abuse less, though I am not yet aware of research that demonstrates this theory.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
            2. Their results do not replicate.
              1. No other research to the best of my knowledge replicates the findings of this study.This study concluded that the average number of “paraphilic acts” committed by “nonincarcerated child molesters was from 23.2 acts to 281.7 acts per offender.” Yet more recent self-report research<\/a> showed that roughly 12.2% of their sample was convicted for any sexual crime against a child, far from the average number reported by Abel. It is also unclear what is meant by paraphilic acts. Do they mean only molesting children, or are they including gay sex and arousal to smell?<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                \"\"
                The list of “paraphilic acts”<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

                Examining Gene Abel’s Myths: The Nutshell Version<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                The most pervasive myths arising directly from Gene Abel’s work are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n