https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia:_The_Radical_Case
Reception
Mainstream media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by the journalist Mary-Kay Wilmers in the London Review of Books,[1] the psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft in The Times Literary Supplement,[3] John Rae in the Times Educational Supplement,[4] Maurice Yaffé in New Statesman,[5] and Eric Taylor in New Society.[6] Reviewers were sharply divided. Wilmers, Rycroft and Rae were scathingly dismissive,[1][3][4] while Yaffé and Taylor were strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out.[5][6]Gay media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by Ken Plummer in Gay News, Hubert Kennedy Books in The Advocate, and Wallace Hamilton in Christopher Street. These reviews were broadly sympathetic.[7][8][9] Jim Monk reviewed the book in The Body Politic, writing that while O'Carroll "takes great care in researching and documenting his arguments", O'Carroll's personal interest in having sex with children meant that he was not "disinterested" and his work was not academic. While Monk granted that many of O'Carroll's arguments had been made before, he credited O'Carroll with being the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and with making a compelling case. Nevertheless, he had reservations, pointing to the possibility of heterosexual men sexually abusing young girls. Monk accepted O'Carroll's view that consensual sex does not interfere with a child's emotional or sexual maturation. Monk criticized O'Carroll's treatment of incest, writing that while O'Carroll stated he would not deal with the topic, he nevertheless implied that "sex play between parents and their children" was desirable. Monk argued in response that "father-daughter affairs" were not "healthy". Monk concluded that the book was the solution to problems facing the gay rights movement in Canada, which according to him was suffering from a feeling that its strategies were lacking.[10]------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist)
"During the APA's heated debate in the early 1970s about the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, Green argued forcefully in favor of declassification.[13] He argued that the grounds for deciding the issue should be the "historical and cross-cultural groundings in homosexual expression, associated psychiatric features accompanying a homosexual orientation, the emotional consequences to the homosexual of societal condemnation, and behaviors of other species".[13] Green applauded the eventual APA decision while strongly criticizing the fact that the administration put it to a vote, saying that such "a shotgun marriage between science and democracy" was "ludicrous".[13]
In his work, on gender identity in children, Green used common English expressions like "sissy boy" and "tomboy" in the titles of some of his publications. His choice of terminology attracted a number of criticisms over its political correctness.[14]
In 2002, he initiated a debate in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the extent to which pedophilia should be classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, without impinging on the legal and law enforcement aspects. It concluded that sexual arousal to children is subjectively reported "in a substantial minority of "normal" people", and reviewed the level of social acceptance of this historically, but stated that such observations may not entail cultural or legal acceptance today.[13] The paper also raised specific concerns about the DSM-IV definition, some of which were later acknowledged by Ray Blanchard in his literature review for the DSM-5 workgroup,[15] which proposed a more general nomenclature distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders; this proposal is part of the DSM-5 draft.[16] In 2010, however, Green criticized in stronger terms Blanchard's proposal to introduce hebephilia as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (as a subtype the proposed pedohebophilic disorder). Pointing to the legal age of sexual consent in several countries of Europe, this would declare 19-year-olds engaged sexually with 14-year-olds as having a mental disorder.[17]"
---------------------------------------------
The same Richard Green was involved in a Boy Scouts discrimination case from 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America
No comments:
Post a Comment