Paedophilia in Academia: Dr Ken Plummer, University of Essex

The German Green Party recently apologised for their part in promoting paedophilia. Read more The Green’s co-leader, Jurgen Trittin, was accused of signing off a 1981 pamphlet calling for the decriminalisation of sexual acts between adults and children “that occur without the use of threat or force”. People who promote paedophilia may not be paedophiles themselves, but they provide paedophiles with the intellectual justification to perpetrate crimes against children.

In the UK it is a crime to incite racial hatred – why doesn’t a similar law apply for inciting sexual crimes against children?

Dr Ken Plummer

Dr. Ken Plummer has been associated with the University of Essex since 1975, and was once Head of the Sociology Department. In his biography he states that his main interests “have always been in the development of a humanistic method and theory to help towards a better social world where there will be less socially produced suffering”. University of Essex website

It could be said that he has done the opposite – he has helped create more suffering by promoting paedophilia and providing ‘academic’ opinions which support the views of those who sexually abuse children. In fact he openly admits his intentions:

By applying sociology to the field of paedophilia we may partially relativise it, humanise it, normalise it, and politicise it. (1)

Ken Plummer attempted to redefine the language surrounding child sexual abuse. In his world, child victims are ‘partners’, sexual abuse is ‘consensual’, a  child being sexually abused by an adult is ‘a relationship’, and long term effects of sexual abuse are mostly ‘a myth’.

…there is the stereotype that the child is “innocent”, “uninvolved” and “non-participating”: this can be so (notably in rape cases) but this is usually not the case with paedophilia. (2)

A sixth stereotype suggests that the consequences to the child of paedophilia are devastating. They can be, but frequently they are not. This is a complex issue and three crucial distinctions must be made here; the first requires distinguishing between experiences that are consensual (paedophilia) and those that are not (child rape)… (3)

His language is very similar in tone to that of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an organisation that campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to 4 years old, effectively legalising paedophilia. This might not be a coincidence, as it has been said that Ken Plummer was member no. 236 of PIE, and regularly corresponded with other members of PIE, including Peter Righton.

Righton was a highly respected child care expert who had helped create a network of paedophile academics and intellectuals that preyed on children in schools and children’s homes across the UK. BBC Inside Story: The Secret Life of a Paedophile

Plummer and Righton both contributed to a book called Perspectives on Paedophilia. The book was a supposedly objective look at paedophilia, and was designed to be used on social work training courses. If Plummer was a member of PIE at the time, or was supportive of their views, he should have declared this interest and therefore his lack of objectivity.

He refers to paedophiles sexual abusing children under 6 years old as ‘a relationship’, and uses inverted commas around the word ‘victim’:

But again, studies suggest that relationships with children under 6 are rare – and that relationships with early adolescents are the most common. (4)

A second group of assumptions highlights the nature of childhood and “child victims”. (5)

Plummer concedes the shortcomings of research of the subject of paedophilia, but is still happy to cite outdated studies if they can be used to support the sexual abuse of children.

While there is little scientific research in this field – and what exists usually depends upon biased psychiatric and prison samples… (6)

He uses this inadequate ‘research’ to undermine the fact that sexual abuse causes devastating harm to the child, and instead lays the blame for any harm with parents, the police, and the courts:

A further image concerns the impact of paedophilia on the child: in the short run, the child is traumatized; and in the long run, seriously damaged. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not support this. In the short run, studies suggest that children’s problems often flow from the reactions of parents who respond to the event with such horror that it elevates the significance of the experience in the child’s eye. The significance can be compounded by police and court action. In the long run, the “victims” are generally shown to lead “normal” lives. In Gagnon’s sample of 333 “victims”, only 5 percent had damaged adult lives – but even “damage” could have had diverse origins. (7)

Plummer goes on to deny that paedophiles are usually interested in sex with children, that it is forced upon the child, and that it is exploitative. Note his use of ‘quotes’ from members of the public in a blatant attempt to demonstrate how uneducated and vulgar the opponents of paedophilia are.

Three further ‘myths’ focus upon the kinds of relationship between paedophile and child. It is usually seen as a coital relationship (interestingly, the press convert “paedophilia” (literally “love of children”) into “child-sex”, so people could remark: “They’re after fucking little kids, ain’t they”); as a forced relationship (“It’s an open door to rape”; “If you’ve got a little child 4 years old and you think one of these bastards is gonna rape the child, and it’s gonna be legal…”); and as an exploitative one. (8)

Despite his admission about the shortcomings of research on paedophilia, Plummer cites an obscure 1964 study by Mohr to challenge the idea that paedophiles use force and to lay blame on the child for inviting the abuse:

Indeed, in some cases the child can be seen as “inviting” the relationship, and – according to Mohr – “most children could have avoided the experience if they wanted to”. The Kinsey study also noted: “In our total of 18,000 interviews, no man or woman reported being victimised by a child.” (9) See also Kinsey’s Paedophiles

Plummer also frequently cites Mohr in ‘Constructing a Sociological Baseline’ to peddle the lie that victims of child abuse are ‘willing partners’:

A third stereotype suggests that the sex act is forced on the child and is uncontrolled. It is not. Again Mohr (1968)…observes that paedophilia occurs in part with the cooperation of the child either out of sexual curiosity or out of emotional need. It is comparatively rare that the sex act is forced upon the child. (10)

Plummer refers to “many case histories” which he claims prove that “children have been greatly assisted in their development” by being sexually abused by an adult (11), and denies that the abused child is exploited by the adult:

It is difficult, then, within a paedophile relationship to be very clear about the balance of power. Certainly if one just studies existing relationships, the power balance can be very ambiguous – for maybe as Tom O’Carroll suggests “Power in a consensual relationship resides with the party that needs the relationship less”, and very often that is the child. Sometimes, then, it is possible for the child to “exploit” the adult – financially and emotionally. (12)

Please note that Tom O’Carroll was Chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange and in 2006 was convicted for distributing a collection of 50,000 images of child abuse. He was arrested after undercover police infiltrated a group known as the International Paedophile Child Emancipation Group and its subsidiary, Gentlemen with an Interesting Name.“According to police O’Carroll saw the groups as a base for an “international secret society” of “academic” child abusers…Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.” BBC News

Tom O’Carroll

In University contracts there is usually a clause about ‘not bringing the University into any disrepute’.

The University also has a duty of care to the students.

It is time that the University of Essex’s Vice Chancellor and Governors addressed these issues with Dr Plummer who should surely, like the German Green Party, be asked to apologise for the pro-paedophile views he expressed so forcefully in the above writings.

The essays quoted above are dated and it’s possible that Dr Plummer may have altered his views since then, as there is much more academic material available now, as well as many first hand accounts from survivors which explain the hugely damaging long term effects of child sexual abuse.

Questions for the Vice Chancellor of University of Essex

– Do you understand that Dr Plummer’s views as expressed in the above texts could be said to bring the University into disrepute?

– If thse same views have been presented to students at your University through Dr Plummer’s teaching and writing, do you consider that this has demonstrated a breach of the University’s duty of care towards its students?

– Will you facilitate Dr Plummer in making a formal apology to victims and survivors of child sexual crime for the views he expressed in his writings as cited above?

– Will you provide a statement that Dr Plummer’s teaching, writing and research does not in any way currently promote pro-paedophile perspectives?

– I will publish the Vice Chancellor’s response on this website.

Questions for Dr Ken Plummer

– Do you still hold the same views on paedophilia that are expressed in your essays Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline and Images of Paedophilia?

– If you do still hold these views, does your teaching reflect these views?

– If your views have changed, have you written anything which clarifies your position? I’ll happily publish it on this blog.

– If you do still hold these views, what do you say to child victims and survivors who may have been abused by those students influenced by your teachings? I’ll happily publish an apology on this website to the victims, survivors and students.

References

(1) p.244, Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline by Kenneth Plummer, from Adult Sexual Interest in Children, edited by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, University Press, 1981

(2) p.226, Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline by Kenneth Plummer, from Adult Sexual Interest in Children, edited by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, University Press, 1981

(3) p.226, Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline by Kenneth Plummer, from Adult Sexual Interest in Children, edited by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, University Press, 1981

(4) p.539, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(5) p.538, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(6) p.537, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(7) p.539, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(8) p.539, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(9) p.539, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(10) p.225, Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline by Kenneth Plummer, from Adult Sexual Interest in Children, edited by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, University Press, 1981

(11) p.539, Images of Paedophilia by Ken Plummer, from Love and Attraction: An International Conference, edited by Mark Cook and Glenn Wilson, Pergamon Press, 1979

(12) p.243, Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline by Kenneth Plummer, from Adult Sexual Interest in Children, edited by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, University Press, 1981