Thanks to my fellow GL activist SuiDream, I was notified that the Rind Report did indeed have a flaw in it that was recognized as such by those who conducted the meta-analysis. So I did a thorough search of the Rind Report and found out that there is indeed a flaw in the original correlations made in the meta-analysis that claimed girls are much more likely to have a negative reaction to a sexual liaison with an adult than boys (which I will get to in a moment).

The Rind Report was not entirely flawed as the antis claim, however, because no alternate objective research on this subject that included boys and girls have found any evidence that boys react more negatively to sexual contact with adults than girls do, but this other research (including that conducted by Sharon Thompson, which didn't include boys at all) has found that girls in addition to boys generally do not react negatively to sexual relations with adults when such contact is mutually consensual.

However, when one does a thorough reading of the Rind Report, one will notice a certain passage which makes it abundantly clear that a likely reason why the girl participants expressed a much greater liklihood of having a negative reaction to their sexual liaisons with adults is because the samples of college students used included a disproportionately large number of those who were subject to incestual advances. Note the following passage from the Rind Report itself:

"A chi-square test of the homogeneity of the sample-level effect
sizes revealed that they were not homogeneous, X2(53) =
78, p < .01. In an attempt to achieve homogeneity, we examined
the distribution of sample-level effect sizes to determine whether
outliers existed. We defined outliers to be effect sizes that were
at least 1.96 standard deviations away from the unweighted
mean effect size (i.e., falling in the extreme 5% of the distribution).
Three outliers were found (r = .36 in Jackson et al.,
1990; r = .40 in Roland et al., 1989; r = -.25 in Silliman,
1993) with z scores of 2.71, 3.16, and -3.60, respectively. The
Jackson et al. study included only incest cases in the CSA group,
and the Roland et al. study included a large proportion of incest
cases [emphasis mine]. Moreover, Neumann et al. (1996) also found the Roland
et al. result to be an outlier. Measures used in these studies from
which effect sizes were computed included: the SAS, BDI, RSE,
and DSFI (Jackson et al., 1990); the MMPI form R (Roland et
al., 1989); and the LOC and TSCS (Silliman, 1993). These
measures were all used in other studies whose effect sizes were
not outliers, implying that the outlying results were not a function
of these measures. Removing these outliers resulted in homogeneity,
*2(50) = 49.19, p > .50, based on k = 51 samples,
with N = 15,635 subjects [emphasis mine]. The recalculated unbiased effect size
estimate (/-„ = .09) and the 95% confidence interval (.08 to
.11) were unchanged after rounding. The obtained small unbiased
effect size estimate implies that, in the college population,
the magnitude of the relationship between CSA and adjustment
is small, which contradicts the assumption that CSA is associated
with intense harm in the typical case [emphasis mine].

"Initial meta-analyses yielded 8 homogeneous and 10 heterogeneous
results. In an attempt to achieve homogeneity with heterogeneous
sets, we examined the distribution of effect sizes within
each of these sets to detect outliers, as defined previously. We
removed all such deviant effect sizes and then recomputed the
meta-analyses. If homogeneity was achieved in a particular set,
then the search for outliers stopped for that set. Otherwise, the reduced set of effect sizes was examined for new outliers, and,
if found, the outliers were removed and the meta-analysis was
performed again. If the set of effect sizes was still heterogeneous
and no additional outliers were found, the set was considered
to be heterogeneous. This procedure resulted in achieving homogeneity
in 7 of the 10 initially heterogeneous sets, yielding 15
out of 18 homogeneous sets [emphasis mine]. Effect sizes remained heterogeneous
only for hostility, self-esteem, and sexual adjustment. Of
the 9 effect sizes removed in the 7 sets that became homogeneous,
the majority came from two of the studies that contributed
to the heterogeneity of effect sizes in the sample-level metaanalysis—
5 from Roland et al. (1989) and 1 from Jackson et
al. (1990). These six effect sizes and one additional effect size
from Bendixen et al.'s (1994) female sample were removed
from the upper end of their distributions [emphasis mine]. Two effect sizes were
removed from the lower end of their distribution (Fishman,
1991; Fromuth & Burkhart, 1989, Southwest sample). Measures
on which removed effect sizes were based in Jackson et al.'s
and Roland et al.'s studies were listed previously in the samplelevel
meta-analysis section; Bendixen et al. and Fishman used
investigator-authored items, whereas Fromuth and Burkhart used
the SCL-90-R. Many studies with nonoutlying effect sizes used
investigator-authored items and the SCL-90-R, implying that
the outlying results were not a function of the measures used.

"In Table 3, the original numbers (i.e., number of samples,
number of participants in these samples, unbiased effect size
estimate, and homogeneity statistic) associated with the heterogeneous
results for the seven sets that became homogeneous are
shown in parentheses, whereas the numbers associated with the reduced homogeneous sets appear directly under the column
headings. Removing outliers showed itself to be productive in
achieving homogeneity [emphasis mine]; further, this procedure had little effect
on effect size estimates, indicating that the large majority of
effect size estimates can be considered to be reliable estimates
of true effect sizes in the college population. The unbiased effect
size estimates for all 18 symptoms were small according to
Cohen's (1988) guidelines [emphasis mine]. The effect size estimates ranged
from ru = .04 to .13. Despite these small values, all effect size
estimates, except for one (locus of control), were statistically
significantly greater than zero, as is indicated by their 95%
confidence intervals. These findings indicate that, for all symptoms
but one, CSA participants as a group were slightly less
well adjusted than control participants. The small magnitude of
all effect size estimates implies that CSA effects or correlates
in the college population are not intense for any of the 18 metaanalyzed
symptoms [emphasis mine]."

The overabundance of cases involving incest was very likely present in many more of the girl participants in the study than the boy participants, thus likely accounting for the discrepancy. And, as noted in the above excerpt (all taken from pp. 31-32 of the Rind Report), once the above outliers were adjusted and removed from the female samples, there was much less disharmony with the male samples. Hence, the Rind Report actually admitted that the above mentioned flaw was indeed a flaw in the meta-analysis, and the final draft of the report recognized and corrected this. It's unfortunate that so many people seem to have failed to read this section of the Rind Report, and have used it as an excuse to imply that girls are less capable of handling their sexual rights than boys are. Or even that BL is more legitimate from a moral standpoint than GL is.


Many thanks to you, Sui!! The ever-diminishing number of BLers who refuse to work with GLers due to the frequent citing of that statement made in the first draft of Rind's meta-analysis now have less of an excuse to do so, since even Rind et al. pointed out that the initial finding was based on outliers in the initial meta-analysis that were flawed due to an overabundance of incest cases in the female samples (which were most likely incest cases of father-daughter or grandfather-daughter cases that occurred within the home).