News Slant	News Slant Archive

The National Association for the Rehabilitation and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) hasn't exactly won hearts and minds promoting its idea that homosexuality is a "disease" that doctors can "cure." Its position, popular among Christian fundies, is rejected by mainstream American psychology and media (institutions which a generation ago, of course, embraced exactly NARTH's point of view). But NARTH enjoyed a media coup last month after attacking a study in Psychological Bulletin, the preeminent academic journal of the American Psychological Association. California-based NARTH, usually marginalized, suddenly had the San Francisco Chronicle and sex radio host "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger jump aboard its bandwagon.

View our poll archive

The Psychological Bulletin article in question achieved little notice when it was published last summer. A review of previously published research, it might not be expected to arouse much interest. Nevertheless, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" came to a remarkable conclusion: what is now defined as "child sexual abuse" (CSA in the lingo) produces little lasting harm when considered in large population samples. That was the conclusion of a statistical reanalysis of 59 studies­ virtually every one ever conducted­ of child sexual abuse in the "general population" as represented by college students.

Sun obscures stars

"Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls," concluded the study's authors. "However this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment was consistently confounded with CSA." In other words, the slight negative effect on psychological adjustment from "abuse" as measured in these studies fell within the range that could be caused by negative aspects of family environment, apart from the abuse.

The idea that a youngster could experience roughhousing, a fist fight, or a spanking and not suffer long-term psychological harm is generally accepted. The idea that a youngster can experience a sexual encounter with an adult, ranging from the welcomed to the coerced­ both get included under the rubric "sexual abuse"­ and not suffer such harm is, by contemporary standards, an extraordinary finding.

The article found that the relation between CSA and psychologically detectable symptoms is quite small on average, and nonexistent under certain circumstances­ such as when male teenagers have non-coerced sex with older persons. This conclusion has been missed before, the authors contend, by researchers' focus on clinical samples­ people in mental hospitals or undergoing treatment. It was precisely such reliance on clinical samples in studies of homosexuality that helped lead psychologists before the 70s to conclude that gay people were mentally ill.

NARTH, which holds just that view, condemned the APA for publishing the study in its journal, contending that psychologists were on the road to promoting sex between youngsters and adults. "They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized," NARTH declared. "In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the APA said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it." NARTH noted that one of the authors had previously been published in the Journal of Homosexuality.

The homosexual agenda?

A San Francisco Chronicle editorial took issue with the authors' contention that when talking about sex and minors, it's vital to make such distinctions as those between "the repeated rape of a five-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult.''

"[T]hey don't differentiate between boys' reactions to sex with a man and sex with a woman," the Chronicle complained, and then quoted radio sex guru "Dr. Laura," "Doesn't that make you suspicious that they have an agenda?"

In the glare of publicity, the APA issued a statement saying the paper represented the views of its authors, not the association. "We are a scientific organization," APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman said, "and we publish a lot of scientific literature, and we try to create a lot of dialogue." Just so that science and that dialogue don't tip any sacred cows. **