Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Re: I'm rolling my eyes right now. You believe that?

Posted by anonymous on 2011-May-1 08:48:23, Sunday
In reply to I'm rolling my eyes right now. You believe that? posted by martirwithacause on 2011-May-1 00:30:20, Sunday

Some examples:

It may reasonably be concluded from all of the foregoing that Russell equates "training" and "sensitization" with passionate ideological indoctrination of the interviewers who have been preselected for their receptivity to the indoctrination". These interviewers are then charged with the duty to collect only certain kinds of data. Such mandates selective disregard of undesirable facts becomes obvious when one looks carefully at several of Russell's interviewing techniques. For example, she declares:

The widely held notion of the child taking the initiative in sexual liaisons with adults i a classic case of the victim blaming so common in sexual abuse mythology. How can children initiate acts of which they have little or no understanding? To avoid propagate this myth we did not specifically ask who took the initiative.

Since it has never been demonstrated that all individuals under age 18 or 16 or even 14 have "little or no understanding" of sexual acts, or that even if they did not, that they would therefore be unable to "initiate" these acts through proceptive expressive behavior, Russell's statement - rather than reflecting a desire to avoid propagating a myth - probably reflects a general disinclination to collect data that might contradict a political or moral position.

In a similar effort to guide response in an approved direction, Russell asked the following to elicit data on the important question of subject affect during and following the sexual interaction:

Overall, how upset were you by this experience - extremely upset, somewhat upset, or not very upset?

Set off from these choices by parentheses on the interviewer's sheet was the designation "(not all upset)". Russell explains that it was left up to the "interviewer's discretion" whether to include this parenthetical choice in her interview schedule. The alternative offered to respondents, then, ran the gamut of the negative, and the one comparatively neutral response (still utilizing the negatively loaded word "upset", however) was in an unspecified number of case not even presented. Russell defends this practice with the following:

The reason this final choice was put in parentheses [and only presented at the interviewer's discretion] is to prevent the respondent from experiencing this part of the question as insulting or insensitive.

Russell considers it an "insult" to allow for the possibility that a respondent may not have been upset by her experience, and the possibility of overtly positive affect is structurally disallowed. One possible subject response to this kind of interviewer bias is described by Germaine Greer (1975) when she relates the experience of one of her school friends:

[She] enjoyed sex with her uncle throughout her childhood and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away from school. What disturbed her was not what her uncle had done, but the attitude of her teachers and psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special hepl. In order to capitulate for their expectations, she began to fake symptoms she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty for not having felt guilty. She ended up judging herself quite harshly for his innate lechery.

In defending such research techniques, writers in Russell's theoretical camp borrow from conflict theory and point to the manner in which mainstream social science methodology has fallaciously been promoted as "objective" while in actuality it reflects prevailing cultural biases and protects the interests of specific groups or classes. Some of these writers indict the very idea of "value-free" research as itself representing an ideological bias.

[...]

Similar, if less overt, examples of the sort of ideologically based structural bias found in Russell's work can be found in the work of Finkelhor. For example, in the instructions presented to respondents in his study of childhood sexual experiences among a sample of college students (1979), Finkelhor describes the experiences being studied in the following manner: "Some of these [childhood sexual experiences] are very upsetting and painful and some are not". This statement seems to set the stage for the expected negative reports. One might well imagine Finkelhor's critical response should some other investigator have instructed her os his respondents, "Some of these experiences are very delightful and pleasurable and some are not". It should be emphasized that Finkelhor's study was ostensibly designed to examine childhood sexual experiences in general, not sexual abuse in particular. The use of "very upsetting and painful" to refer by implication to the larger portion of these experiences is therefore quite revealing of the investigator's bias.

[...]

======================

You can read the rest in "Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents" by Paul Okami, in:
"Pedophilia - Biosocial Dimensions" by Jay R. Feierman (ed.), Springer Verlag, 1990.

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Do not engage in campaigns of harassment against other posters.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.