Views on Incest:
Piper has a very narrow definition of incest. When questioned during a deposition about how common incest is in the united states, Piper objected multiple times, stating that “we have to be a little careful because when you say incest, again it depends on how you define it… it is a contentious issue that revoles around how you define “incest.” Eventually, he gave his opinion: “When I say “incest,” I’m talking about forcible intercourse and penetration ether vaginally or anally of a father against his daughter.” He estimated that “maybe half a percent to a percent” of people experienced it. [1]

In his article “A Skeptic Considers, Then Responds to Cheit,” Piper implied that “sexual contact between children and adults” could be “neutral or positive,” and that children’s negative reactions to CSA are “adversely conditioned” by society as they experience “no significant harm.” [2]

Junk Skepticism:
Piper published a critique of the corroborated cases archive in Ethics and Behavior (1999) titled “A Skeptic Considers, Then Responds to Cheit.” Beyond under-reporting the amount of cases chronicled in the archive, His analysis misconstrued these cases, omitted critical information, omitted key witnesses, and reported false facts. Beyond this, Piper contradicted himself about the impact of the archive and incorrectly defined “corroboration.” [2]
You can read Ross Cheit’s detailed response to Piper’s critique in “Junk Skepticism and Recovered Memory: A Reply to Piper” which upholds the burden of proof.
“Piper purports to challenge the facts in seven cases. As detailed later, in virtually every instance his argument is undocumented and inaccurate.”
“Piper demonstrates, however, that junk skeptics will never be satisfied – nor will they engage the real facts of most cases… Piper’s article adds insult to the real injury of child sexual abuse, unmasking the harsh reality of FMS politics.” [3]