That's why I said there isn't one strong enough for people like that. I didn't say sentence them. That's too easy. Child molesters need to be dealt with worse than any sentence ever could. Try reading next time dumbass.
I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but an American Psychological Association paper asserts that adults having sex with minors can have a "positive effect" for the minor. Maybe that will be what Mr. Bean will cite in his defense?
*******
For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal.The study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year.The APA apologized for printing the article,
resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda, while others charged that Congress’s and the APA’s actions amounted to censorship and would have a chilling effect on scientific research....
...
The study was a review of 59 studies of college students assessing the effects of childhood and adolescent sexual experiences with adults.During the peer review process (in which the APA reviewers critique the article and suggest or require changes before publication), the action editor asked Rind and his colleagues to discuss the implications of
the studies’ findings that willing minors often experienced such activity as neutral or positive, and evidence of psychological harm often could not be found.As a result of this request,
the authors wrote in their article that using definitions of “abuse” and “consent” based on legal or moral rather than scientific considerations resulted in poor predictive validity, and impeded an understanding of the phenomenon and its effects.Thus they
recommended that more neutral terminology (“adult-minor sex” rather than “abuse”) be used for interaction experienced positively and resulting in no sign of harm...
...
Congress continued to pressure the APA to condemn the report. Eventually, as the House vote neared, the APA responded to the pressure by writing a letter to one of the sponsors of the bill, saying that “clearly, the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare and protection issues,” and promising that the Rind report would be reviewed again by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.The APA also promised to consider whether future articles are in the interest of public policy before publishing them. The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA....
...
In a letter to the APA, 12 past and current presidents of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex strongly objected to the APA’s response to the controversy, saying that it “cast a chill on all such research”and that in order to solve serious social problems, the search for accurate information must be protected from political considerations and pressures.Nationally respected sexuality researcher Leonore Tiefer also sent a
letter to the APA calling its position “contemptible” and describing Rind’s work as “clear-eyed and comprehensive.”....
The Rind Controversy
******
1. The APA brazenly publishes an article that paints out adult-child sex as "neutral or positive"...knowing full well that many other organizations look to their conclusions to base policy on, including pediatrics and the AMA.
2. Congress outraged, demands the APA retract such conclusions as completely unacceptable. The APA's ranks are split down the middle on the report representing APA principles.
3. The "half" of the APA that favored the new view of adult-child sex as "positive", or at least the publishing of such information that others might rely upon to form their own policies as 'a good idea', was outraged that the APA retracted, sort of, the study's conclusions.
So at least 1/2 of the APA would support a 66 year old man having sex with a 15 year old boy....at least in theory they might suggest it might have been a "positive" experience for the boy.
Oh, and BTW, the APA employs a new type of "science" that arrives at conclusions by rejecting data in favor of "audited group think"...just exactly as cults do. They long ago ejected their old official stance of only publishing conclusions that had been arrived at scientifically, using data and numbers. This new method is called "CQR". When you get a minute, google it. It's a hoot.
