Disgusted! Question for those familiar with sexuality research

[O Gurl]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Like many of you, I became aware of the Amazon scandal involving the sale of pedophilia books and manuals last night. I deleted my account today, and along the way learned that one of the authors in question, David L. Riegel, fancies himself a published author in the field of psychology.Riegel is the 70+ year old author of the self-published rag Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers which as of 11 pm (CST) tonight was still available for sale on Amazon. On his site, Riegel makes the following autobiographical statement:

In my seventy plus years I have worn many hats... I was drawn into research and writing in the behavioral sciences when I was approached in 1999 by an editor of the McGraw Hill textbook Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality for an essay on the controversy that was then swirling around the 1998 Rind-Bauserman-Tromovitch publication of "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples" in Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53. The essay was accepted by this editor, but the McGraw Hill management refused to publish it until some five years later, as described in The Odyssey of an Essay.

Since then, I have been involved in primarily Internet based research into the psychosexual development of boys, a field that unfortunately for some time had been dominated by "victimology" and "child sexual abuse" paradigms. I have been published in various journals, in the above mentioned textbook, and am the author of six paperback books on these issues. To provide a better foundation for my endeavors, in 2005 I finally completed an earned undergraduate degree in Psychology from a fully accredited state college.
​

He also provides a link to his "Academic Publications": http://www.shfri.net/dlr/acapubs.html

His "research" (which is primarily letters to the editor) has been published in Archives of Sexual Behavior and Sexuality and Culture. Is anyone familiar with these journals? I am seriously considering contacting the editors and inquiring as to just why they are so willing to pollute our field with nonsense that allows this pervert with only an undergraduate degree, no actual data, and no research funding to pass himself off as a credible researcher. Any thoughts? Perhaps I am missing something...

 

[BiopsychStudent]

It is disturbing that, at a glance, his CV does look legitimate and it takes some dissecting to see that its all garbage. I looked up the Archives of Sexual Behavior and it appears to be the flagship journal of the Kinsey Institute in Indiana. It looks like a reputable organization.

Amazon removed the book today, however.

 

[KillerDiller]

I do research on sexual behavior and The Archives of Sexual Behavior is, indeed, a legitimate journal. It sounds like he may simply have been published in the correspondence section or perhaps in a book review?

What exactly are his arguments?

 

[JockNerd]

Archives is currently under the editorship of Zucker, who is not well-regarded among sex researchers. Many poor things have happened there, including publication without appropriate peer review.

I've not read his work so I've no idea about the quality of his stuff though.

 

[DrGachet]

It's interesting how times have changed. In fact, it may be simply a matter of place and company. Because you can replace "pedophilia" with "homosexuality" and title your post "Disgusted!" and still get sympathetic replies, or better yet, use a racial reference. Please note I am not in any way "pro-pedophilia", but merely noting how our views of what is disgusting morally is not set in stone, even amongst the educated and urbane.

 

[O Gurl]

What exactly are his arguments?

Admittedly, I did not go through his research with a fine toothed comb as I was still overwhelmed by what he discusses in his books--the idea that adult/boy sexual encounters can be good for the child in that it allows the boy to express his innate drive for sexual stimulation. He supports this claim with the "evidence" that young boys will self stimulate at a young age or experiment with other boys. He never addresses the obvious power differential that is involved when an adult comes into the picture. He also apparently has not conducted any well-controlled trials. He has primarily collected internet survey data from pedophiles that suggests that they are unlikely to forcibly enter a relationship with a child. Most of them report that the child initiated the contact (surprise).

As far as his work in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they are all letters to the editor in which he pretty much regurgitates the same things, only in a less blantant way. He doesn't come right out and excuse the pedophile, but does make arguments like child porn are not linked to actual offenses, citing "an indepth case study of 11 pedophiles", and thus, sentencing for child porn offenses should be lighter.

 

[O Gurl]

Amazon removed the book today, however.

No. Sadly, this is a different guy. The one whose book was removed was named Phillip Greaves.

 

[O Gurl]

It's interesting how times have changed. In fact, it may be simply a matter of place and company. Because you can replace "pedophilia" with "homosexuality" and title your post "Disgusted!" and still get sympathetic replies, or better yet, use a racial reference. Please note I am not in any way "pro-pedophilia", but merely noting how our views of what is disgusting morally is not set in stone, even amongst the educated and urbane.

Last I checked, being born of a certain race has never been considered a moral issue (?) however I think I see where you are going with this. Let me be clear in my disgust. We are talking about someone advocating for criminal behavior from a "scientific perspective" with no acutal science to back it up. While I do find pedohpilia itself to be sick, the thing that I am taking issue with HERE is that there are established, scientific journals that are giving this guy grounds to sell himself as something he is not--a professional in psychology. As Biopsychstudent pointed out, at first glance or to the uneducated eye, his CV looks legit.

 

[thewesternsky]

I am actually horrified that one of his publications (in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality) seems to have survived peer review. In that paper, his methodology is abysmal and the data doesn't actually support his claim in any way.

Archives of Sexual Behaviour is a well-respected journal in the field, as far as I know. (Note that I'm not a sex researcher, but there is a well-respected sex researcher in my department who occasionally publishes there). However, JockNerd's right about Zucker, and you should note that all of Riegel's ASB pubs are "letters to the editor" and therefore did not go through peer review.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Seriously unsettling. :S

 

[FadedC]

Don't know anything about the person in question, but I had studied under a prominent sex researcher as part of my MA and he had stated that his field was unfortunately known for using poorly constructed studies and taking other poorly constructed studies at face value without giving them much critical thought. Obviously every study is not like that, and his purpose in telling us that was not to bash the field but to encourage any of us pursuing it to not be one of those people. But from some of the stories he told me it doesn't surprise me that much that someone with an undergraduate degree and questionable data could get into a respected journal.

 

[KayJay85]

However, JockNerd's right about Zucker, and you should note that all of Riegel's ASB pubs are "letters to the editor" and therefore did not go through peer review.

Wow @ the whole issue! It's crap like this that gives our field a bad name. I actually find the letter to the editor publications to be more upsetting. At least I could try to excuse this with scientific objectivity if his work had undergone a peer-review. In that case it might be easier to try to separate my values from the work. What appears to be happening here is that the editor is choosing to publish what really amounts to a very sick man's personal opinion and conjecture in a journal alongside rigorously reviewed material. That just does not seem fair to me. If these decisions have in fact been made by this Zucker character then I may send a letter as well.

 

[KillerDiller]

I don't know, I feel strongly that letters to the editor should reflect the diverse opinions of the population and that editors should not prevent letters from being published simply because they disagree with the viewpoint being presented. Controversial letters stimulate debate. Maybe several letters were published in the next issue refuting his claims.

I'm not much of one for reading anything but the peer-reviewed articles in journals. I'm basing my opinion much more on how I feel about letters to the editor of local papers than from what I have seen in academic journals.

 

[Existenz]

I hate the subject matter, but I'm all for freedom of speech and press. 👍