Thursday, March 1, 2012

2. Gardner’s Theory Mirrors ProPedophilia Advocacy 371


Jennifer Hoult
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome
http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf 


Excerpts see
Page 20-21



2. Gardner’s Theory Mirrors ProPedophilia Advocacy
371
Gardner’s views about adult-child sex parallel
those of advocates for the legalization of adultchild sexual contact
372
 and pro-pedophilia
advocacy groups like the North American Man
Boy Love Association (“NAMBLA”).
373
 Founded
in 1978, NAMBLA describes itself as a “political,
civil rights, and educational organization” whose
goal is to “end the extreme oppression of men and
boys in mutually consensual relationships.”
374
 The
organization claims it, “does not engage in any
activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate
that  anyone  else  should  do  so.”
375
 NAMBLA
provides publications and support to incarcerated
sex offenders, construing them as “unjustly imprisoned” for allegedly “consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people,” rather
than incarcerated for violations of law and harm
against children.
 376
 Both Gardner and NAMBLA claim that
adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant
harm  is  caused  by  social  stigma  rather  than  the
sexual contact itself.
377
 Gardner claimed the sole
“determinant as to whether these experiences [i.e.
a sexual encounter between an adult and a child]
will be traumatic is the social attitude towards
these encounters”
378
 and stated:
[M]any societies have been unjustifiably
punitive to those who exhibit these sexual
paraphilic variations [e.g. pedophiles,
rapists, etc.] and have not been giving
proper respect to the genetic factors that
may very well be operative. Such considerations may result in greater tolerance
for those who exhibit these atypical sexual
proclivities. My hope is that this theory
will play a role (admittedly small) in
bringing about greater sympathy and
respect for individuals who exhibit these
variations of sexual behavior. [Further,]
they do play a role in species survival.
379
 
 While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders
must be removed from society,” he advocated that
they only be imprisoned after treatment has
failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned
with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to
lengthy sentences.
380
 As a political advocate,
Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of
child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of
child abuse, and for the creation of federally
funded programs to assist individuals claiming to
be falsely accused.
381
 Like Gardner, NAMBLA
claims that adult-child sex is normal, healthy, and
beneficial for children, and advocates for increased
respect for pedophiles and the eradication of
sanctions through the legalization of pedophilia.
382
While NAMBLA cites an article that claims that
adult-child sex is generally not harmful to boys,
383
the U.S. Congress condemned this article and
passed a resolution specifically recognizing the Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome  21
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
harmfulness of adult-child sex after scholars
reported the article’s methodological deficiencies
and inaccuracies.
384
 Ignoring evidence that adultchild sex harms the majority of male and female
children affected, pro-pedophilia activists and
scholars argue that children are generally not
harmed by sexual contact by adults and that not
allowing children to have sex with adults denies
children’s rights.
385
 Despite his passionate advocacy, Gardner
claimed he did not condone or recommend adultchild sexual contact, maintaining he was “only
describing the reality of the world.”
386
 He
maintained that he was “opposed to [NAMBLA’s]
primary principles,” claiming that adult men
having sex with boys are “exploiting them, corrupting them, and contributing to the development of sexual psychopathology in them,” and
stating that pedophiles belong in prison.
387
 However, both Gardner and NAMBLA published the
view that adult-child sex is generally benign or
beneficial. Both claim to abhor exploitative,
coercive sexual conduct,
388
 and neither defines
what constitutes child sexual abuse.
389
 
 NAMBLA claims the distinguishing factor
between legal and illegal adult-child sex is the
consent of the child,
390
 ignoring the common law’s
recognition of the developmental limitations that
render children incapable of giving meaningful
consent. Gardner claimed that coercion of a
“weaker and/or younger” person, including pedophilia, is  per se  “exploitation of an innocent
party.”
391
  He  described  NAMBLA’s  view  that  if
the child consents, pedophilia is “acceptable and
even desirable” as a “rationalization for depravity.”
392
 Gardner indicated he did not believe a
child could give consent, but he often describes
adult sexual contact with children as a benign
social norm that is not inherently harmful.
393
Simultaneously asserting that pedophilia and
incest are not inherently harmful, and that they
are inherently harmful, Gardner claimed we are all
nascent pedophiles.
394
 Despite his few claims to
the contrary, Gardner’s theoretical work is largely
consistent in the view that adult-child sex is
benign or beneficial.
 The fact that PAS is rooted in theory that can
fairly be described as “pro-pedophilia” raises
policy concerns for our legislature and judiciary.
PAS’s roots and functional use demonstrate that it
is a political-legal tool designed and used to shield
child abusers from liability, and to promote their
unfettered access to their children through judicial
orders of sole paternal custody.
 In essence, PAS describes women and children offending as patriarchical norms
395
 by
showing disrespect  or  refusing  to  show  affirmative
respect for men.
396
 It presumes all reports of male
violence are false, ignoring empirical evidence that
men inflict far more harm through violence than
women,
397
 and mirrors patriarchic law, under
which male violence towards women and children
is legal. It punishes women who exercise their legal
rights, mirroring women’s lack of legal rights
under a patriarchical system. Gardner called PAS
a form of child abuse worse than the child’s
death.
398
 Certainly, while a dead child cannot
withhold fealty from his father, a living child who
does so challenges and undermines his power as
the patriarchic. Under a patriarchical system, a
child’s disrespect to his father is outrageous
because the child is the father’s “possession.”
399
While PAS allegedly harms children,
400
 the only
PAS-caused harm Gardner documented is the
rejected male’s grief.
401
 Posing as a medical
syndrome, PAS diagnoses as pathological women’s
and children’s rejection of men. While such
behavior is not pathological, it does represent the
ultimate narcissistic insult to male authority.
Thus, PAS seeks to use coercive state action to
force women’s and children’s compliance with
male demands for affirmative displays of
respect,
402
 and seeks to protect the unfettered
access of intra-familial sex offenders to their
victims through the award of sole paternal
custody. Alarmingly, undaunted by PAS’s lack of
scientific validity, and determining to use PAS in
court, PAS proponents advise one another to
circumvent evidentiary admissibility standards by
testifying about PAS without calling it by name.
403
 Both PAS’s underlying theory and functional
use in court demonstrate that its admissibility
violates public policy with regards to women’s and
children’s legal rights and well being.

Jennifer Hoult
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome
http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf 




No comments:

Post a Comment