That's fine...
It is? I personally felt that the main thrust of Harmful to Minors was decidedly elsewhere. Quoting from the wiki entry on her book:
Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex... is a controversial book by Judith Levine that was published in 2002. The foreword was written by former United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who resigned after suggesting that masturbation be promoted as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity.[1]
The "Author's Note" states: "Most of the research for this book, including interviews, was conducted between 1996 and early 2000, and pertinent statistics were updated in 2001. The names of all nonprofessionals have been fictionalized, along with some identifying characteristics."
In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.
The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, as well as the Dylan V. Heather case, and the little-known SPARK Support Program for Abusive Reactive Kids and STEP Sexual Treatment Education Program and Services, both of which she claims do far more harm than the child sex offenders did themselves.
Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher—one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive." University of Minnesota Press eventually agreed to publish the book, despite cries of outrage from the right wing of Minnesota's political establishment.
It became famous after it won the 2002 Los Angeles Times Book Award for Current Interest. Conservatives such as Joe Scarborough and Robert Knight accused Levine of promoting pedophilia for her suggestion that the US adopt statutory rape laws similar to those in the Netherlands. Some demanded the book be removed from libraries.
Can you give an example in her writings that you feel demonstrates this belief of yours?
Read the last chapter of her book. It's an us or them attitude.
The main thrust of her book is to remove the Statute of Limitations for rape and molestation claims. I am against this, because of the psuedo-scientific criteria for guilt. Of the three people I know personally in my life (I'm in my 30's) that had to deal with this shit, they were are screwed by a system that did not need objective evidence or didn't require a minimum of witness that were found to be credible.
This doesn't mean I want the guilty to go free, but it's not the law's responsibility to protect them if they can't provide evidence that satisfies a scientific criteria for guilt. By not being scientific by their criteria, they are knowingly victimizing innocent people. This victimization destroys their lives, it follows them forever. They always are viewed as a sicko. In the case of the most serious crimes, you must have the highest standards for the criteria of guilt. At present, the system is very imbalanced and draconian.
Most of these cases are not psychopaths abducting and creating a gimp in their basement, then murdering them. This is very rare, but was hyped up since the 70's (Stranger Danger). The majority of the Kids on the Milk Carton are parental abductions. What the statistics I have come across say is that it's mostly family and friends. Family and friends may do some things that may seem inappropriate to our culture sexually, but they are not physically harming them. It's a bunch of diddling and tushy-touching. In terms of the claims of psychological and emotional abuse, what I heard and read is that the family and friend who engage in these activities don't threaten them into doing the act. They are curious or already know and want to do it. The threat occurs after the act. This threat is due to the threat of being found out, not to gain access to the act. The taboo and the condemnation I believe are the primary source of psychological and emotional abuse, not the act itself. I met a spectrum of people over the years as adults who described what happened to them. Some felt it was a problem, others not. Those who did find it to be a problem mainly described feels that logically would spawn from public condemnation and popular taboo, not their sexual feeling themselves they felt during the act. In light of this, I think we are actually be too harsh on people who are proven to have been involved in such behavior. They usually are treated like murderers when it comes to punishment.