Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

An amazing television story on teen & preteen prostitution

I was watching PBS just now, and, on the newsmagazine program NOW, Maria Hinojosa reported on the prostitution of teen and preteen girls in the Atlanta, GA area. I highly recommend it to anyone concerned about this kind of child sexual abuse. The http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/422/index.html program], including audio, video, and supporting information, is available at PBS.org. The potential for using the facts and figures cited to improve this and other articles makes this a resource worth checking out. I've done a fair bit of reading regarding this topic, and I was still incredulous at the prevalence of underage prostitution. --SSBohio 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The CSEC article needs a lot of work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_sexual_exploitation_of_children -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to pick nits, and ignore all of this if you already know it, but it might be to your benefit to know this: the usual way of linking to another article or page on Wikipedia is to enclose it in [[double brackets]]. For example, instead of inserting the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_sexual_exploitation_of_children, you can link to the same article by typing [[commercial sexual exploitation of children]] which results in the link commercial sexual exploitation of children.

As far as the commercial sexual exploitation of children article goes, I'd enjoy collaborating with you on it. But, by the same token, this article could do with being taken apart and reassembled. Perhaps we could propose an outline for the article, then flesh it out. The current organization of this article seems somewhat confused. --SSBohio 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other scientists" ref

I have removed this because on the short list of signers is Vern L. Bullough, member of the editorial board of Paidika, and it would require going into too much detail to contextualize the bias. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Image:Sexually Abused boy.jpg -- The first time this image was removed, I chalked it up to a new user who seemed intent on "rewriting" a large chunk of the article and simply reverted it since childhood/sexuality articles often see these "new editors" step in and try to rewrite things per an agenda. However, the second time it was removed by a different person who said simply that "we don't need pictures of sexual abuse", now the photo is hardly showing the active sexual abuse - and is not graphic, in fact it appeared in prude-ish society in 1910, so I hardly think it's going to be gratuitous. It has the benefit of avoiding child nudity, yet showing a sexually abused child, yet one who has since died and is not identifiable, protecting their right to privacy, and is uniquely able to fit this page as an illustration. Are there other opinions? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted it but I may have been a bit hasty. The image is rather upsetting even if it's not graphic (if it had no caption, I would think it was a corpse from a war). What informative purpose does it serve? The subject of the article is not what I would consider "visual" subject. Legitimus (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think reverting it, and having it stay reverted, is a very good decision. There's enough contrversy swirling right now about the images on Wikipedia. No need to potentially enflame the situation with a disturbing picture that offers no redeeming value. Furthermore, how do we know the child was sexually abused? He could've fallen off a horse for all we know. Wikipedia simply needs to educate people, not shock them. Legitimus, I think you're a great editor. My 2 cents. Googie man (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary (I was the second editor to revert this) was "there's nothing about this picture that illustrates sexual abuse (and we don't need pictures of that). Indeed, there is nothing about sexual abuse in this picture except the title. We could take any picture of a child and slap "sexually abused child" on it (and that would be more accurate, actually, as there is no way to tell if a child has been sexually abused by looking at them, and there is absolutely no difference in appearance between the average child and the average sexually abused child. This picure is completely gratuitous, and does nothing to illustrate this topic (except possibly to imply that it is more grave than it is). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The image is adds no value or understanding to this topic; it distracts from understanding the topic, since most sexual abuse does not result in extensive or obvious physical damage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rind study

With the assistance of a local college library, I've obtained a copy of Rind et al in PDF format. If anyone would like to read it or check quotes from it (and allay fears over convenience linking to IPCE), please email me. --SSBohio 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Garry P88's recent edits

Although clearly uncivil, his edit seems more reflective of the sources for this article than the previous version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I need what is the time limited to file a report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.134.170 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

new section suggestions

I suggest adding two new sections to this article:

• Therapy (or... Treatment)

Exploration of treatment modalities and methods used to help survivors of child sexual abuse, both children and adults.

• Prevention

Methods and programs for preventing child sexual abuse - private and public sector, education, criminal system, others... ?

Editors familiar with these areas are invited to add the new sections and appropriate info. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ondersma quote preserved for check against the original

|title=Sex with children is abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) |author=Steven J. Ondersma |coauthors= Mark Chaffin, Lucy Berliner, Ingrid Cordon, Gail S. Goodman, and Douglas Barnett |journal=Psychological Bulletin |publisher=American Psychological Association |year=2001 |month=June |volume=127 |issue=6 |page=707-714 "For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse. This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors.
Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification). The term adult-child sex lends itself to a set of values that are far more troublesome and disturbing than those Rind et al. sought to avoid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.55.226 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.225.74 (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2008

The quote makes little sense, and should be removed: "The American Psychiatric Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults",[20][21] and condemns any such action: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."[20]" However, in America, it is perfectly legal for an adult to have sex with children in most states. refer to the age of consent article on wiki. than you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.159.145 (talk) 07:51 30 August 2008

The quote isn't in the article in the first place, as it's too specific to Rind et al. This is old news, buddy. And yes I have not only seen age of consent, but read it's referenced statutes. It is most certainly NOT legal. Where did you get a stupid idea like that? The youngest age is 16 as of 2008. Are you even reading any of these articles? Legitimus (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories?

I just read the case about Ian Magill who is considered to be the worst, and something in the article that caught my eye was '....categorised as category 5, the worst level.' I never knew there were any different categories, I always assumed child porn was child porn. Anyone know more about this? Should this be included in the article? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3167210.ece Tydamann (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's child pornography, and I think the categories are part of Irish law regarding criminal penalties rather than psychological assessment.Legitimus (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lax definition?

By this definition, children in nudist societies are being constantly "abused", and any sexual relations, even consensual ones, are "abuse". This obviously needs to be fixed! I decided to discuss this here and not be WP:BOLD.✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? Legitimus (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse effects

I have a suggestion for the external links section of this page. [3]gives very specific details about the the effects of sexual abuse on children. The site gives statistics on factors that influence sexual abuse effects as well discusses vulnerability factors,emotional, physical and behavioural child sexual abuse effects. I would appreciate the opinion of others as to whether or not this would be a valuable addition to this article. Ginerbread (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok for the most part. The website is run by educator and abuse survivor, though she does not appear to have academic credentials. This is fine for survivors looking for support though, and I would propose adding it as an external link except that there are hundreds of these websites, and it's hard to have all of them. The good news is, the page in question ("effects") is carefully referenced with journal articles, so it can be a jumping off point to obtain more refs.Legitimus (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pope's apology does not address prevalence in Australia

How about another section called 'social response' to child sexual abuse, and put the Pope's comments there? I just can't see how it fits where it is. Madeleine —Preceding unsigned comment added by DysMystic (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable references

Regarding Pedophile prevalence in child sexual abuse cases, one of the references Jack A Roe uses for the claim that "Most offenders who abuse pre-pubescent children are pedophiles" (at the top) in fact claims no such thing. It states: " Although there is substantial evidence in the historical and anthropological record of the sexual use of children by adults, surprisingly little is known about the etiology of pedophilia or its relation to other forms of sexual aggression. After briefly reviewing the research on pedophilia, we argue that one major difficulty in conducting or interpreting such research lies in the different definitions "pedophilia" has received. Most important, much of the research has accepted a legal definition of pedophilia, treating all offenders convicted of "child molestation" as pedophiles, regardless of the age or appearance of the victim. We argue that a distinction should be made between biological children and sociolegal children. Laws governing child molestation reflect sociolegal childhood, regardless of its discrepancy with biological childhood. "True" pedophiles should be identified by their preference for biological children. By using legal classifications, researchers may well be confusing two distinct types of offenders, child molesters and rapists, and confounding attempts to understand pedophilia."

As to the other, a PDF document, I have not seen any reference wherein it says that pre pubescent children are predominantly sexually abused by pedophiles. I will agree that it does seem to strongly suggest this, but I strongly question the sources of the studies, as I relate below. On page 3 it says: "Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. A study by Abel et al32 of 377 nonincarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report ques- tionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts. These studies confirm law en- forcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults.1 Studies that used self-reports and polygraphs show that pedophiles currently in treat- ment underreport their current interest in children and past behaviors. "

I have yet to actually see where the first self-report studies were drawn from: were they all from incarcerated pedophiles? As to the nonincarcerated study, it seems that the study was drawn from formerly incarcerated pedophiles ("whose legal situations had been resolved"), in which case the study would be severely skewed.

A bias has been found in studies and institutions, as has been demonstrated in books such as "Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions" and "Harmful to Minors". Aside from this, these studies are only showing the average, not the percentage of pedophiles who have actually sexually abused children.

Jack A Roe also removed a reference from a source that is funded by Baltimore Mental Health Systems, hardly a 'unreliable source' as he put it. Shade3x (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Every one of the above arguments have been answered multiple times in the archives of this talk page and talk pages of related articles. You are welcome to find the answers there. Regarding the source supposedly funded by Baltimore Mental Health Systems, there is no independent corroboration of that statement, it appears only on their website. They are not listed as a funded organization on the Baltimore Mental Health Systems website. In addition, their fact sheet does not list an author; their website does not list an advisory board; it is not a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the point of prevalence - that the numbers of pedophiles in the criminal population are low and are being misrepresented. You will need to modify the BMHS claim, though - as it is only a claim. Simple quotation marks would do this satisfactorily. forestPIG^(grunt) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the prevalence issue, the current version as edited by Shade3x is incorrect, but I'm not addressing that content at this time.

Regarding B4U-act, attribution with quote marks will not be sufficient, the source cannot be used because it is a self-published website of an organization that makes claims about itself that are not verifiable, even after Google searches and review of the Baltimore Mental Health Systems website listing of supported organizations. Further, no author is listed on their fact sheet or anywhere on the site; and the website says it has an advisory board but does not list the members; therefore on all counts, the organization fails the test of reliability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from B4U-act, for the above reason as well as the fact that one of the authors it mentions is mentioned elsewhere in this article, and in a way that is perhaps a bit less confusing given the structure of this article as a whole. If there is anything left that appears to be incorrect, please mention it and I'll look into it. Shade3x (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

US law applying in other countries?

Looks like it may not be here anymore, but I remember reading something about if US citizen goes to another country where he can more readily find children to have sex with and/or it may be turned a blind eye to, that they can be charged with a crime. This is a first for me. I didn't ever think any country could make laws which apply OUTSIDE of itself. I thought the country where it was committed would always have the jurisdiction over the crime. Take this torrent site for example. They are based in Sweden and regularly receive threats citing US Law, commonly the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They have never removed any of thier trackers because of US law and gleefully mock any legal threats with apparent impunity. You can see it here http://thepiratebay.org/legal. It would be nice to have a link to something about this, because it sounds totally strange and bogus. The snare (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is the page you're looking for: Child sex tourism#Child sex abuse penalties --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"child sexual abuse also occurs when an adult exposes their genitals to a child"

What complete and utter nonsense. If that was true, most of the population in Finland would be abusing their children! I'll re-write this. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vocal inflection

The line about sexual abuse causing a "vocal inflection" should be cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.140.144 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

\Further reading

I've removed the following books from further reading:

• Waterman, Jill (1993). Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools. New York, London: The Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-523-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Davis, Laura; Bass, Ellen (1994). The courage to heal: a guide for women survivors of child sexual abuse: featuring "Honoring the truth, a response to the backlash". New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060950668.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The courage to heal is a very suspect book by a popular press that advocates for the recovery of childhood memories of abuse. It's been criticized by Mark Pendergrast for being hackneyed and urging the creation of false memory syndrome (in Victims of Memory). Also note here, It's also not scholarly. Behind the Playground Walls was criticized in Satan's Silence by Debbie Nathan and Michael Snedeker for analyzing "reported" abuse rather than actual abuse (i.e. the satanic ritual abuse moral panic). It's a very focused book looking at the day care sex abuse hysteria, most of which was absolute garbage and hysteria caused by coercive interviewing rather than actual abuse, and not a good representation of actual child sexual abuse. Finkelhor is well respected and has a rather old volume, Understanding Child Sexual Abuse from 2006 and a university press, this one by routledge, the Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence has a chapter starting at p. 147. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the criticism for these books can be on a wikipage about them (many books do so). or a section on criticism of scholarship in this regard on this page.

at any rate, the opinion of a couple doesn't discount its published validity and source, along with the work. different methods maybe seen as supporting their course.

Also, one should discuss such removals before removing them. when there's potential controversy its better this way (discussion). Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss this first. They are good books. Just cause some guy calls them something, doesn’t mean we should just believe them and delete everything. That Finklehor book sounds like a good one too. Wikirator (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The books are very controversial and potentially dangerous to vulnerable people who read them, they should be removed. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

False allegations

I was wondering why there wasn't a section on the article about false allegations of child molestation, how they affects the victim of the allegation, and how it affects the child it supposedly happened to? I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but it seems like a big gaping hole. Leomarth (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because it has its own article: False allegation of child sexual abuse. The "accusation" angle is quite separate from this subject, as this article focuses on the actual event itself.Legitimus (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Types of sexual abuse anyone?

Other than exposing genitalia and stuff, did you guys know that asking a child to pull down his pants and show his/her butt in order for it to be smacked is also a form of sexual abuse? Even nuns and priests used to do that along time ago. Would anyone care to write that down please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueknightex (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, but I'll meet you half-way in good faith. There is a common argument that it is inappropriate or even a form of CSA to strike child's bare bottom. You get different takes on this depending on what you're reading. There also have been several studies (for example, from Project Zero at Harvard) that suggest that spanking in and of itself is a form of sexual abuse, in that the proximity to the genitals can cause involuntary arousal. This of course has the potential to be very damaging.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barriers to treatment of Survivors

• The lack of correlation between traumatic events that occur in childhood to presenting mental illnesses in adulthood.
• Female children are more frequently abused. Therefore, the stigma surrounding women in the mental health community labeling women as "hysterics" and deeming women biologically predisposed to mental illness prevents them from recieveing proper care.
• The "conspiracy of science" still surrounding sexual abuse and the tendency we as a society still have to blame victims. This prevents many survivors of childhood sexual abuse from seeking treatment.
• The ongoing fasination we as a society have with the perpetrators of sexual violience against children. Focusing on offenders takes peoples attention away from the survivors.
• Lack of research on treatment methods and diagnosis of childhood sexual abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.91.162 (talk • contribs) 22:03, November 13, 2008

What does this have to do with editing the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Act title

In the history sub-section, it should read "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act"... however the author in this case has missed out the 'prevention' part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunkissedfortune (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Link

Hi

Can you add our website to the links section below {{editsemiprotected} [4]

Many thanks

Steve Director Survivors Swindon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveb121 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well adding links to survivor organizations has been a tad controversial, not due to dislike of them, but rather due how many there are. There are simply so many that we would either have a huge list, or we simply do without.Legitimus (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you suggest your organization to the Open Directory Project, possibly Child Abuse: Sexual Abuse at Curlie? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stats

The lead says "Approximately 20% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children". For which country(ies) do these statistics hold? Are they just for urban areas, or rural ones too? Also are these statistics old or recent? VR _talk 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to page 6?? If you try to print or print preview, there is no page 6!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidgettoo (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Clinical identification

Systematic review: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/23/2779 JFW | T@lk 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Update sexual orientation data?

This article cites an intriguing study that finds that homosexuality toward adults is not correlated with homosexual child abuse, and even suggests that homosexuals don't abuse children. However, it is a fairly small study, it has the well-meaning effect of contradicting a vile accusation of the time, and perhaps the pedophiles studied felt they had strong reasons to provide misleading information. If anyone could dig out more documentation on the issue I think it would be very productive for the article, because it would seem like this must mean that there is some qualitative distinction between the ordinary sexual feelings that both normal people and pedophiles feel toward fellow adults, and the feelings that the pedophile feels toward children. A heterosexual teenager is attracted only toward opposite-sex children, yet when he grows up he becomes attracted to same-sex children? How is that? Wnt (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that impression from the Groth and Birnbaum part of the article (that homosexuals don't ever abuse children). It merely states that a person's prior adult relations are not related to the sex of their child targets. Now the meaning of that is more complicated. A "fixated" or "exclusive" pedophile never has any interest in adults, nor past relations with them. Groth found half his sample to be so. It could also be argued that a relatively fixated pedophile may attempt "sham" relationships with adults, either as an attempt to be "normal," or as a cover in order to get access to children (i.e. the single mother's boyfriend who ends up molesting her children of either sex). What drives such a person towards a child of a specific sex (or both) is not well understood, but signs seem to point to it being altogether something different than either adult heterosexuality or homosexuality, though I will look into the literature on it and see if any other users that work in mental health can help expand it.Legitimus (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

References

The following reference points to a dead link:

1. ^ a b c "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc (MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH) 82:457-471 2007. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf.

Can we find another copy of the study to link to?

This link was one of the references of the statement "Most offenders who abuse pre-pubescent children are pedophiles":

1. ^ a b Ames, A. & Houston, D. A. (1990). ]http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8g66p6370731x85/ Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia.] Archives of Sexual Behavior. 19 (4), 333-342.

Reading over the article, I can't find anything of the sort in there. In fact, according to the definitions in that one, every offender who abuses pre-pubescent children would be a pedophile, not most, since the article makes no distinction whatsoever between sexual attraction and criminal sexual action. It's sole apparent goal is to state that pedophilia is not about post-pubescent children.

Do we have anything that actually supports the above statement available?

68.62.50.17 (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The URL linked in the article has been repaired. The requested information can be found in the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lingual error?

The intro of this article says: "child sexual abuse also occurs when an adult indecently exposes their genitalia to a child.." Is this lingually correct? Or should it indeed be: "adults indecently expose their genitalia.."? VKing (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks grammatically correct as it is I think.--Expsychobabbler (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your objection, but according to Wiktionary here it is not used in the singular form even for one person. Presumably it is like 'pants', always plural, or something like that. Tyciol (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in Mayo Clinic article, pedophiles account for 65% of child molesters, not 88%

The actual study by Abel and Harlow, page 9, notes that of the child molesters, only 65% are clinical pedophiles. Of the child victims (children molested, not child molesters) 88% are molested by pedophiles and 95% of molestations (separate acts) are done by pedophiles.

This difference is very significant to the whole pedophile/child molester angle. 88% makes it look like almost everyone who ever touches a child is a clinical pedophile, while 65% means that one out of third who commit at least one child molestation are not clinical pedophiles, meaning that their sexual preference is people older than prepubescent children.

Even this 65/35 ratio could be somewhat biased towards a higher number of pedophiles, because 12% of the child molesters analysed in the study were in prison (US incarceration rate 3.2% of total adult population) and pedophiles, who in turn molest a much larger number of children than non-pedophiles, are likely overrepresented since the risk of getting caught and imprisoned is therefore higher than for non-pedophile molesters with one or very few actual molestations. Could someone registered please fix this? --85.156.226.189 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Researching...

Indeed, you are correct. Wow that section is hard to read. Needs more visual aids. Anyway, I will fix it.Legitimus (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

False allegation

False allegation of child sexual abuse is not mentioned in the Child sexual abuse article. One short chapter on false allegations would be appropriate due to its nature and seriousness. Godtadet (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned under "see also." This article is already rather long, and the subject already has it's own wikipedia article.Legitimus (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mothers' role

• The price for protecting the Mothers (Sunday March 15, 2009) As far as I have seen, it is not mentioned. -Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.32 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgiveness for mothers and fathers? For mothers only? For fathers only? For none of them? -- 88.75.88.32 (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgiveness and its possible effects

Yoga teachers Joel Kramer and Diana Alstead analyse the use of unconditional love and the associated concept of forgiveness as a foundation for authoritarian control. They survey religions worldwide to make their assertion that religious imperatives of forgiveness are often used to perpetrate cycles of ongoing abuse. They state that "to forgive without requiring the other to change is not only self-destructive, but ensures a dysfunctional relationship will remain so by continually rewarding mistreatment."

Taken from Forgiveness#As_a_foundation_for_authoritarian_control. - Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.164 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption resolved

user blocked

This article is hilarious This article reads more like propaganda than as scientifically informed. The victimological perspective is highly debated today, but here it is written as if it was the only true proven--given by god--view on the matter. Large amounts of relevant research is ignored, the one stated is often misrepresented and this is just in the beginning. What the hell happened here? Oidesu (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I read your comment a number of times, and I can't figure out what you mean. Could you rephrase? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) To put it in a simple way, the victimological perspective takes sexual interaction between children and adults to be harmful in and of itself, and it predicts great harm in many cases. It uses terminology which reflect this perspective, calling all such interaction 'abuse', it also denies to possibility of consent in these interactions. This perspective is used to explain all kinds of problems in adulthood and you can find hundreds of different symptoms coming from the 'abuse'. This is the standard view today. There is however a challenger to this view, which takes the perspective of a continuum of experiences, sexual interactions between children and adults can range from positive to negative, harmless to harmful, and consensual to forced. The value-ridden terminology of 'abuse', 'sexual predator' etc., is rejected in favour of neutral terminology like 'sexual contact', adult-child sex' etc. This article is almost entirely written from the victimological perspective. The problem is that this 'theory' never had strong scientific support and cannot explain a enormous amount of observations made in science, nor can it provide a mechanism for how the 'abuse' is supposed to cause damage in cases where there are no obvious causes for trauma. To write the article in this way, and completely ignoring all criticism and all the research which it fails to explain, can best be described as propaganda. It's sad in a way, but funny in the sense that it captures the worst expectations that people have about wikipedia. Oidesu (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I see what you mean, and, although I agree with you in part, it's probably illegal to state that view in the US. At the very least, the view is most commonly proposed by those who are accused of illegal acts which are not necessarily harmful under that perspective. Under the circumstances, perhaps you could propose edits which reflect that view, and see who objects. Some of those objecting would probably be sockpuppets of a banned user, and some of those supporting you would probably be sockpuppets of another banned user, so we could clean up Wikipedia to some extent..... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know any administrators here so its impossible for me to edit this article and win the oncoming edit-war. I would just be banned by some friend to whoever has been here the longest. I don't think the wikipedia system work for articles like this. The article is beyond repair. Oidesu (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) It's not illegal to state opinions in the US, just for the record. The act itself is simply illegal. Also for the record, only pedophile users misuse the term "victimological" this way, as opposed to it's real definition. This is one of the same tired arguments such users always make; the same arguments made by convicted child molesters all over the world. The scientific consensus is quite clear: young children cannot consent to sex, and are undeniably harmed by being molested. Any half-wit doing any clinical work would know that without even needing to be told. I'm certainly no sock, and I have never been banned, just so you know. I've been here a long time, no admin is my "friend," and I have seen many battles fought on these pages. Why am I still here? Because I can listen to anyone without losing my temper and I can play by the rules. Follow the rules yourself, and you have a chance. Spout off a bunch of BS and edit-war, and you'll end up like all the others.Legitimus (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "The scientific consensus is quite clear: young children cannot consent to sex, and are undeniably harmed by being molested." There is no such consensus and I have no idea what motivates you to claim this. Let me give you one of many examples from the current scientific debate: "Victimologists have promulgated a simplistic and monolithic paradigm of harm in child and adolescent sexual encounters with adults and even with older youths, but this view completely fails to account for the complexity that many would prefer believe does not exist. There is ample evidence, some of which is even aknowledged by victimologists themselves (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986), that some encounters are not unwanted, and are not independently seen as harmful by the younger. Arch Sex Behav (2009) DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9465-3 There is neither consensus nor strong scientific support for your claims. Your views does not reflect current science and should be revised. You should also refrain from using guilt-by-association arguments. Oidesu (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree that there isn't a scientific consensus, but there no possible way to scientifically refute the commonly-held belief that adult-child sex is bad for the child, so and it's clearly the the primary view. We (Wikipedia) don't report WP:TRUTH, we report what reliable sources say. You know what they say as well as I do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Eh, the reliable sources in this article are truth on this subject. Nothing hilarious about this article whatsoever. I completely agree with Legitimus about this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked permanently. Fancy that. Oh well. Legitimus (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I would like to see some acknowledgement of the views expressed by Oidesu in the article, even if under some sort of "this view mostly held by pædophiles" disclaimer.

MaxHarmony (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part something like that really needs to be in the pedophilia article instead of this one, since this sort of word-twisting and justification-seeking is actually a well-documented feature of that disorder (it's even in the DSM, which is one reason pedophiles try to undermine it so much).

Another problem is there's no RS for that kind of material other than pedophile websites, and the sources used in this article are from highly regarded scientific ones with peer-review and wide-spread academic acceptance. Now I will grant you, there are a handful of scholarly studies along the lines of what Oidesu was saying, but both pedophiles and the general population often interpret them incorrectly. What such studies are really trying to say is that the results of sexual abuse is not 100% the same every time, but rather exists on a continuum. Not unreasonable. But note that no study has ever empirically claimed it had positive effects, merely that victims are often deluded into believing it was a positive experience as a defense mechanism. Likewise, harm can be worse if it was forced, but simple naive compliance with the abuser's actions do not eliminate harm. And not all harm causes clinical presentation. There are many life problems including sexual dysfunction in adulthood that may not provoke a person to seek psychological treatment. Legitimus (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a few minutes looking around here would demonstrate that it is NOT only pædophiles that advocate for lowering or eliminating the age of consent. It's certainly higher than necessary in many jurisdictions. MaxHarmony (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. An actual pedophile goes for prepubescent (under 13), not teens. Obviously it is more damaging the younger the child, and less damaging the older they are. It's all a scale with many variables.Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Effects of child sexual abuse - the debate

An interesting scholarly article that I read recently had a debate between two figures in ethics. One of them stated that abuse leads children to become prostitutes in their later life, and to have unusual romantic/sexual relationships that are more polygamous and temporary than normal as well.

However, as the other ethicist pointed out, modern psychologists do not consider either being a prostitute or having complete disinterest in ever finding a single romantic partner to be 'bad' or 'wrong' in the sense in the sense that schizophrenia is 'bad'. Thus, they argued that people must not these behaviors later in life as evidence of how bad child sexual abuse is.

I could find references for this if necessary. But before I do, I'd like to ask here whether or not being a prostitute and having alternative romantic relationships can be described as this article as an 'effect of child abuse' since modern scholars consider neither or those things to be 'bad'. The Squicks (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at what I wrote, it appears to be a bit confusing. To be clearer:

(a)I don't know what the consensus view is among researchers as to this debate= whether or not the fact that child sexual abuse causes non-traditional sexuality in the victims in their later life is a bad thing or if it is not relevant (since non-traditional sexuality is something that is not a bad thing according to many or most psycologists).

(b)If the consensus is that it is indeed a bad thing, I believe that this issue should be explored in the article. The Squicks (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very interesting point you bring up. Perhaps a few points need to be clarified:

• "Bad" and "wrong" are two words any psychologist aught to be ashamed of if they ever use them professionally to describe behavior. Schizophrenia is not "bad" (a moral judgement); it is distressing and often makes living, working and interacting with fellow humans difficult. This is a partial and oversimplified reason why it is considered a "mental illness."
• There are many behaviors that may not be mental illness (perhaps what the ethicist meant by the word "bad"), but are considered "maladaptive." Considering one thing or next to be so is a complex question. Prostitution can be seen as highly maladaptive, due to health risks, legality, social stigma, and enduring lack of emotional fulfillment.
• Jumping off from there, the relationship patterns associated with persons who were sexually abused can likewise be considered maladaptive when you look more deeply into them than their external pattern. The person can be very depressed, they feel no sexual satisfaction with their partner, they have confused sexual identities, they feel too clingy, they cheat on them. Any of these things eventually sour the relationship, making them short lived, but also leaving the person feeling very hurt emotionally, and more so than most people would experience after a break up. Likewise, boundaryless relationships are intense, but lack emotional intimacy, which in a way is an attempt to avoid it rather that face the pain. Patterns of intense, unstable relationships is actually one of the criteria for borderline personality disorder, a mental illness and one often associated with abuse.
• After committed and good psychological treatment for the trauma, people find that they no longer seek these maladaptive behaviors, and start having more satisfying relationships. That is, once they start to heal, they no longer want to be prostitutes, sabotage their relationships or date abusive people. I think this is important to note.

Here's the trouble with exploring this issue: A lot of this information and consensus comes from the therapeutic circle rather than the research one. This makes sourcing it very hard even if there is a consensus among thousands of therapists with decades of experience apiece. Therapy is a highly complicated subject to explain in text, though I did make an attempt with the "treatment" section some time back.Legitimus (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I agree with many of your points, but the problem here is that non-traditional sexual behavior is something in which whether or not it qualifies as "maladaptive" is highly disputed. A women (or man) can be a prostitute with zero interest in ever finding a long-term relationship and live a happy, fulfilling, and joyful life. People with boundaryless relationships without the nature of emotional intimacy that monogamy gives often say that they are perfectly happy and adjusted.

As a solid real-life example, Harvey Milk had multiple romantic relationships with different men at the same time, some purely physical without real emotional intimacy- particularly in his visits to gay bathhouses, and he has said that this made his life better, not worse. I believe he wrote something along the lines of "A human being can fall in love with as many people as they want or whatever time they want".

As a bit of side note, I disagree that the term "bad" always implies a moral judgment. If someone uses the term 'maladaptive' or similar medical jargon around a layman audience, it could be confusing and unhelpful to what they are trying to really say. Using the colloquial term 'bad' to explain things is, in my opinion, something that could be necessary and appropriate. The Squicks (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just carry a concern that using the term "bad" (or moreso "wrong") implies that medical science is somehow judging peoples behaviors. For talking to laypersons, yes I can understand using a term like that, though those of us who work in mental health would rather avoid it at the very least because its so vague. We do not see any person as "evil" just because the have mental illness is all I'm trying to say.

As I said before, maladaptive is a complex assessment to make. And you are right that it is also a source of intense debate with some behaviors. One approach is assessment of consequences of a behavior (this is used in addiction medicine). When a behavior causes demonstrable harm or distress, it is not considered healthy. For example, if a person is miserable with the outcomes of their non-traditional relationships, but they continue to pursue them anyway sometimes for years, that's maladaptive. Also, while I do not want to disparage Harvey Milk, self-report of satisfaction has its limits. Just sayin.Legitimus (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion (which I freely admit is largely uninformed), the Treatment section really needs to have information about how the abuse leads to maladaptive sexual behavior later in life without treatment as well as how treatment often helps with the issue. The issue could also be mentioned in the Psychological harm section. But I am not sure how to proceed since, I think, the solid data needed for citations does not exist.

As before, you stated that "A lot of this information and consensus comes from the therapeutic circle rather than the research one. This makes sourcing it very hard even if there is a consensus among thousands of therapists with decades of experience apiece." The Squicks (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have found a source of use: [5] How this look?

Child sexual abuse was not significantly related to sexual coercion or reports of silencing oneself in relationships.

That seems a bit weird and leads me to wonder about the representativeness of the sample. What do you think? The Squicks (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice changes?

Female victims who were abused before age 12 also will sometimes have a curious vocal inflection recognizable by clinicians, reminiscent of a child speaking, though at present this has not been studied or explained.

-- This appears to me to be spurious. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh it is quite true, and rather creepy when you hear it. The problem is that nobody has formally studied it. There is this call-in radio show out of California where the host is a licensed physician (Loveline) where it comes up all the time. I just need to locate an appropriate clip.

Ok, here is one that illustrates it: [6]

Legitimus (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it occurs at some times. At issue is whether or not there is any real proof as to the cause and effect. I don't think any such proof exists, and- thus- the sentence should be taken out. The Squicks (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Interesting link. Thanks for getting it. I personally don't see it as 'creepy' or 'curious'. But that's, of course, a matter of personal reactive opinion (It's the same thing as the fact that I probably would not see someone eating a ice cream sandwhich dipped in cheddar cheese as 'curious' either). The Squicks (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary reminds me a whole lot of Blossom Dearie See 'Surry With the Fringe on Top' and 'Figure Eight'. The Squicks (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes a certain level experience to pick it out and differentiate it from an affectation or short statute, and I suppose after that you start developing a subjective reaction to it. Note how Dr. Pinsky (who started this in 1983) was able not only to tell that she was sexually abused, but at what age just from her voice alone. I realize this isn't solid proof, but I would really like the subject to get out there in the public consciousness more.Legitimus (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that link corrupted or something? What's with the thing about the 'pony'. Is she so traumatized that she resorted to saying that? Was the station sadistic and decided to place that in? Did someone hack the file to try and be funny?

Oops, that does require some explaining. That random voice in the middle is not the caller "Mary." It is a recorded clip of another caller from long ago (a 27 year old woman who had been severely sexually abused for years). The radio show's engineer often plays it back in the middle of the call for comparison purposes when a caller has the same voice characteristic.Legitimus (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thank you for explaining that for me, as I was very confused. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref. 10 audit

It would want to be authoritative to support such a sweeping claim, which may superficially be intuitive, but ... 1988 doesn't sound like an up-to-date reference. Any more recent ones? Tony (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inviting a fox into the hen coup

I have what I feel is important observation in this field that is worthy of mention and would like some feedback or sources if possible.

Adult victims who went untreated and undisclosed about their abuse can be a risk factor for their own children. While the majority of victims do not become offenders themselves (see Offenders below), mothers can still be an indirect problem to their children. A frequently observed pattern involves the mother entrusting a romantic partner, coworker, relative or other "trustworthy" person around her child, and then that person sexually abusing that child. In other words, the mother unconsciously "invites a fox into the hen coup." Like clockwork. You encounter a child abused by mom's boyfriend, magically mom was abused too and never treated.

Even in situations wherein the abuse of the child occurred completely outside the mother's actions and control, there often a problem wherein the mother will glibly dismiss the occurrence, feeling it was unremarkable based on her own experience.

The information on fathers and their children is rather limited, in that most single parents are women in the US. That is the reason for referencing a female rather than male in the above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2009

I support the addition of this information to the article. Kathleen Faller (background) calls this the "Stepfather-LTP" relationship (LTP = live-together-partner) and describes it as a high-risk situation, especially if the child had previously been victimized by a prior partner of the mother. She notes that in these situations the "incest taboo is attenuated or does not exist" and that there can be a general blurring of generational boundaries with a significant portion of the perpetrators being younger than the mother.

• Faller, Kathleen Coulborn (1989). Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment. Columbia University Press. pp. 61–63. ISBN 0231064713. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done some more reading, and I can see why you posted this here first rather than directly in the article. It's challenging to find sources that focus on the "inviting the fox" part of the formula. It's clear that it happens, but most of the sources are addressing the later stages, in other words the abuse itself, rather than how the abuser was invited in to the situation or what the risk factors for that are. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

More than one abuser

The article should maybe provide information about cases where there is more than one abuser, so-called gang rapes. For instance, there is a rather disturing story from Sudan about collective assualts on children by the state-sanctioned Janjaweed. [7] ADM (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. Abortion

In some cultures and religions, child sexual abuse is considered to be not as controversial as abortion, because it is not technically a murder, such as abortion is often thought to be. For instance, several bishops in the Roman Catholic Church have agreed with this and have recommended that girls who are raped by their parents to continue their pregnancy. This was notably the case in 2009 with archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho in Brazil. [8] ADM (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a section like this in the article. I will help contribute to it. Hawkesworth (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Does this necessarily mean it is less controversial? I don't think this necessarily implies that these bishops are endorsing rape so much as not wanting to extend the punishment of the rapist on the fetus. Tyciol (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Potentially misleading statement in the intro

The following statement in the intro is potentially misleading in parts:

"Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child, displaying pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or using a child to produce child pornography.[1][3][4]"

The problem I have with it that certain activities it lists as a form of CSA are not always considered CSA in certain contexts something it fails to make clear. First, with regard to indecent exposure of the genitals to a child, their is not clear agreement those that define CSA from clinical standpoint that a child witnessing a nudist walking down the street as protest in local or state anti-nudity laws is being sexual abused from seeing the person nude. This is different then a say a man in trench coat who flashes a child. At this time I am not aware of any consensus that a child merely seeing another person in the nude is abusive in and of itself irrespective of the context even if it might legally qualify as indecent exposure under the law. Second, "physical contact with the child's genitals" and "viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact" are both activities an doctor might do when examining a child for medical issue relating to the child's genitals but as it is currently written it seems to state the such an examination is a form of CSA? Also, a mother or other caregiver might have need to come in contact with child's genital area as a part of keeping the area clean such when bathing a baby or toddler or when caring for a older child who suffers from a mental or physical disability that prevents them form cleaning themselves. Thus I think it needs to be made clearer that mere nudity in and of itself is not necessarily CSA and that contact with the genitals is not CSA when done for certain legitimate reasons such a a part of a medical exam. Cab88 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying and I don't think the sentence was intended to indicate such a literal meaning. It seems it is simply a lack proper wording to make it clear. Do you have a suggested rewording? If not, I will see what I can do myself.Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy / Alternate Theories?

Forgive me if this is badly worded, this is my first time editing a talk page.

"The effects of child sexual abuse include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, propensity to re-victimization in adulthood, and physical injury to the child, among other problems."

There is an interesting book I am reading, Harmful to Minors, in it Judith Levine argues that sexuality, even involving children, is not by default "bad", and that it is the pressures and norms of society that may cause issues such as depressing and feelings of guilt. (Especially if the person in question is told they should "feel" like a victim.)

Obviously this has to do with sexual encounters involving consent and now things such as rape. But I feel that it is a good point. I recommend anyone who is up to it to read this book and perhaps add a section to this page. (I am no where near familiar enough with wikipedia to try editing such a delicate page in a way that would be useful.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.17.78 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have heard of this book as well. I should say up front that as a mental health provider my perspective is a little different than the general population. There are some issues to its inclusion in this article. Now, there is some truth to the fact that society does not always react to this particular issue in the healthiest way, and does not always perceive things very constructively. For example, society seems to lump together college students who have a one-night-stand with late teenagers, and middle aged men who kidnap and rape 8 year olds, calling the whole lot "pedophiles." This is of course absurd. Something that often goes undiscussed is that harm exists on a continuum, that is, it is variable based on age and other factors.

But here's the problem, you don't want to overemphasize this either. There have been instances where actual pedophiles (the clinical definition I mean) like to trumpet Harmful to Minors and other works such as the infamous Rind et al. to justify their actions, including clearly exploitative acts perpetrated on children under 10. With kids under a certain age, there is just no excusing things. For example: under a certain age, any sex no matter the circumstances causes physically measurable nerve damage that lasts a lifetime. Another problem is victims already have a hard time coming to terms what happened to them and suffer from distorted appraisal. Works such as these can have the unintended consequence of influencing victims to never seek help or justice because it causes them to doubt their feelings, even when the act was clearly a rape. A third problem is that Judith Levine is not any sort of medical or psychological expert. She is just an writer and, by her own admission, an anarchist. Now, like I said before, I "get" what she is trying to say, but my impression is that her work seems really to be about teenagers and not small children.Legitimus (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you'd better read this book completely before commenting on it. By the way, though Judith Levine is just an author and journalist, she cited plenty of scholarly sources in Harmful to Minors, and some psychology or psychiatry experts highly agree with the book's viewpoint (see [9]). By the way. I think that claims that child sexual abuse should be renamed to adult-child sex and the difference of the effects of adult-child sex and adult-teen sex should be included in the article, as some studies mention them greatly, and news media like USA Today have re-stated these findings (see [10]. Please use Google Scholar and Google News to seek sources), so that the article can meet the NPOV policy.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article makes the exact points I was trying make. They are talking about teens, not little children. Your other link was to Amazon.com, and the reviews are by amateurs, not experts. Further, on reading these reviews, they also seem to make my point: That people make too big a deal over statutory rape cases with teenagers. Frankly, your response confuses me; it appears you did not read my post at all or just a sentence or two.Legitimus (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Find Sherman A. Thompson's review. As a retired psychotherapist he is professional enough to review this book.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Texas State Board of Psychologists, there was never anyone named Sherman A. Thompson ever licensed in that state. The author of the review is a fraud, and this comes as no surprise given several major errors in his review that display a complete absence of any training in basic neurology.

This is all besides the point. Even Thompson's review indicates this book is all politics and societal critique. A worthy and admirable set of arguments, I agree, including inappropriate reactions from judicial and medical fields based on poor evidence that anything actually happened, or that an abusive act actually occured. You'll not get much argument from me there. But there is no science in this book purporting that sex with children is not harmful and is not abuse. That is a massive leap that many seem to make about this book, including pedophiles.Legitimus (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Married, middle-class abusers

A lot of people tend to associate child sexual abuse with the fact that certain abusers tend to remain unmarried and childless, such as in the recent clerical abuse scandal. But there is also research in the UK that shows that married men who have real jobs also take part in child abusing activities. This could probably be included as part of the sociological section which deals with the likelihood of abuse. [11][12][13] ADM (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Groth and Birnbaum were some of the first to explore this aspect in their 1978 paper "Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons." This is mentioned briefly under Psychological aspects of offenders.Legitimus (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be much more careful with sourcing. The first one linked seems acceptable the second two are certainly not, www.intothelight.org? Ugh. -- Banjeboi 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Female child sexual abuse

It might be a good thing if there were a separate entry on the phenomenon of female child sexual abuse, which continues to be a social taboo, because society generally expects child abusers to be male. This phenomenon has been covered in the press recently, which might give it some extra notoriety. [14][15][16][17] ADM (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I cannot agree with it. 96 percent of child rapists are men (according to the U.S. Department of Justice); I don't believe that we need a separate article covering the other 4 percent. LOL! So we should have a separate entry on "female child sexual abuse" even though 96 percent of child rapists are men (U.S. Department of Justice)? What a douche! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [User:SantaClaus86|SantaClaus86]] (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (edited by Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Incest

Incest is not given the full impact it deserves in the court system. There has been no study undertaken on the long term impact of incest to the family and to the individual child victim. There is however an abundance of evidence that suggests that any individual who dares to speak out against incest in a family that predominantly supports incest by concealing it in denial (despite the tell tale physical scars of child victims) is all too often cast out of their family and subjected to defamatory attack by a multiplicity of others in the community and in various forms and with such force that it's as if the outspoken individual were themselves a pederast or convicted child sex offender. This is not what protecting children from child sexual abuse is supposed to be about.

Incest is just as prevalent in middle class Anglo-Saxon family's as it is in indigenous family's but according to the Anglo-Saxon heads of government incest in their ethnic group simply doesn't exist which is why there has been no study undertaken on the long term impact of incest to the family and to the individual child victim.MayqueenJane (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

About the definition of child sexual abuse

In fact, the definition itself is ambiguousnce in the West since they are some cases where parents of non-Western ancestry are accused of CSA for bathing with their children or a parent is deprived of parenting rights for asking whether feeling sexually excited is normal while breastfeeding, so to meet WP:NPOV and achieve Wikipedia's mission: summarise all reliable sources in good presentation, Wikipedians should add the definition controversy.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these alleged occurrences? Even if you do, frankly that is a separate issue and more a matter of law. This article is about the raw concept of child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article also examines law aspect of child sexual abuse briefly. By the way, here are the sources for these occurrences: [18] (in Chinese) and [19].—Preceding unsigned comment added by RekishiEJ (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 January 2010

Neither of those are reliable sources for Wikipedia. The one in Chinese is a web discussion forum. The other is the website of a woman who claims she has been "sent by God to empower women, and to restore the worship of God as Mother". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The one in Chinese is copied from a reliable Chinese newspaper.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether that is true or not without the newspaper itself. Furthermore, you said that is Westerners who have this reaction. China is not Western. If such things really do happen in the West as you claim, surely you can provide a reliable Western source, such as from a medical journal, a court record, or a reputable American or European news source.Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source for the statement that a parent was deprived of parenting rights for asking whether feeling sexually excitd is normal during breastfeeding: [20].--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus [21] and [22].--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AssociatedContent is a website that aggregates self-published articles, those articles are not reliable sources. What happened to Denise Perrigo is a sad testimony to lack of understanding on the part of many in the legal system who failed her, but it is unrelated to the topic of child sexual abuse and doesn't belong in this article. Also, it's just one anecdote and can't be used to make generalized statements. It's possible there might be a place for those concerns in the article on Laws regarding child sexual abuse, if bona-fide sources can be found that discuss misapplication of those laws. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K., then let's find appropriate journalistic (excluding citizen media which are not considered reliable by media scholars and reporter groups) and academic sources and put these fact in the laws regarding child sexual abuse, since English Wikipedia already split the law section into a sub-article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading addition

The Risks of Not Reporting Abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoekstralower (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Saber1972, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} On the history of child abuse, it would be informative to mention the sex manual, The Admirable Discourses of the Plain Child, which graphically described sexual intercourse and other sexual acts involving children. This was published in China during the mid-1400s. Source: Runaway Kids and Teenage Prostitution: America's Lost, Abandoned, and Sexually Exploited Children (Contributions in Criminology and Penology) By R. Barri Flowers

   * Publisher:   Greenwood Press
   * Number Of Pages:   232
   * Publication Date:   2001-06-30
   * ISBN-10 / ASIN:   0313314926
   * ISBN-13 / EAN:   9780313314926

Saber1972 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please suggest how we can mention it? As a 'request to edit a semiprotected page', you need to say e.g. "Please add THIS sentence, ref. THIS" - and if it seems vaguely reasonable, we'll add it.

Therefore, please reinstate your request with a concrete suggestion; alternatively, others may read the above and add to the article - but as a 'semiprotected edit request', I cannot process this as it stands, so marking as 'not done' for now. Hope you understand, feel free to ask for clarification if needed.  Chzz  ►  22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Explanation for removal of section

I I quote the section that I have removed, and point out that it contains two references. I have also removed the references. Both reference no. 92 and reference no. 93 lead to a ringtone website, which allegedly plays a sound file of people speaking, whose names are not presented. This claim about voice inflection will require reliable references to meet the guidelines of wikipedia. Random wave files on ringtone websites are certainly not references. That this "curious inflection" has not been studied, automatically dismisses it from an encyclopedia article.

Female victims who were abused before age 12 also will sometimes have a curious vocal inflection recognizable by clinicians, reminiscent of a child speaking,[92] though at present this has not been studied or explained.[93]

I repeat the ringtone links here, if anyone is curious. http://www.supload.com/listen?s=SliJTI http://www.supload.com/listen?s=l7oKJk Miloserdia (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Treatment Section

The treatment section is poorly referenced. For child treatment there is only one link to a manual, which says nothing about whether the treatments in this manual are actually applied. The adult section - curiously named adult survivors - does not contain any references. I would normally be inclined to delete the entire section. Given the length of it however, I would like to give the author a chance to add references. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it (or at least I did the first draft) but you are right, it needs more references. I wrote it very hastily some years back, and I don't usually have a lot of time to do primary writing. But I will see what I can do. Psychological treatment is a very complex issue, much if it taught and experienced rather than read (thus, referencing can be difficult), and it is often hard to describe in a reasonably concise fashion.

Just so you know, it is not required that every single bit of text on wikipedia be referenced. Rather it is merely recommended and becomes more of an issue when a stated fact is disputed.Legitimus (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot, are you a counselor and do you have sources you would recommend?Legitimus (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dropping this here until I finish reading it: Taylor, JE.; Harvey, ST. (2010). "A meta-analysis of the effects of psychotherapy with adults sexually abused in childhood". Clin Psychol Rev. 30 (6): 749–67. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.05.008. PMID 20579790. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Thanks for taking up the work. I am no therapist, but came across the subject accidentally. The passage on adults came across as smacking somewhat of original research. Glad you are improving it. BTW, the already referred to document by Faller (1993) (ref 24, available online) seems to include a comprehensive treatment section for children. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Some qualifications are needed for the some of the types of activities that qualify as sexual abuse.

There are two types of activities that are not automatically sexual abuse but which the introduction implied they were. The first being physical contact with a child's genitals and visual observation with the child's genitals. There are at least legitimate reason why a person might engage in physical contact with a child's genitals that are not considered abuses. The first being a doctor conducting a legitimate medical exam of the genitals and the second being a caregiver of a physical disabled child who as part of proper hygiene must have their caregiver wipe their genital areas say after assisting them going to the bathroom. Now in terms of visual observation with the child's genitals, again a doctor might legitimately have reason to do so. Also, a parent who observes here child's genitals as say part of a medical issue involving that area would not generally be considered to be sexual abusing their child. It seems to me that the key for several of the sexually abusive activities listed in the intro us that there must be a sexual nature to the activities and thus some of them because they don't always have a sexual motive are not always considered sexually abusive. I added two qualification for the two activities I mentioned above but I welcome a better way to explain the clarification if someone has one. --Cab88 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Passage Removal

I've removed the following passage from the Prevalence/South Africa section:

A number of high-profile baby rapes since 2001 (including the fact that they required extensive reconstructive surgery to rebuild urinary, genital, abdominal, or tracheal systems) increased the need to address the problem socially and legally. In 2001, a 9-month-old baby was raped by six men, aged between 24 and 66, after the infant had been left unattended by her teenage mother. A 4-year-old girl died after being raped by her father. A 14-month-old girl was raped by her two uncles. In February 2002, an 8-month-old infant was reportedly gang raped by four men. One has been charged. The infant has required extensive reconstructive surgery. The 8-month-old infant's injuries were so extensive, increased attention on prosecution has occurred.

...not because it's not useful information there, but because the text is copied, wholly unaltered, from copyrighted material (please see Sources under copyright). Interested editors should contribute the information it contains in unique prose or, if that proves too difficult, incorporate it as appropriate quotes from the source.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement request

A number of high-profile baby rapes since 2001 (including the fact that they required extensive reconstructive surgery to rebuild urinary, genital, abdominal, or tracheal systems) increased the need to address this disturbing problem socially and legally. A 4-year-old girl died after being raped by her father. In 2001 after an infant had been left unattended by her teenage mother, a 9-month-old baby was raped by six men, aged between 24 and 66. In February 2002, an 8-month-old infant was reportedly gang raped by four men. One has been charged. The infant has required extensive reconstructive surgery due to horrific injuries. The 8-month-old infant's injuries were so horrific, increased attention on prosecution has occurred. A 14-month-old girl was raped by her two uncles.

The above paragraph should be added to the article as I've edited it and it shows some of the absolutely life-destroying effects of paedophila including death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.138.129 (talk • contribs) 15:25, December 14, 2010

Couple of issues here. Yeah, that paragraph has decent information (if a little anecdotal), but it's a copy -paste. That's not allowed; it's a violation of copyright, and technically plagiarism if inserted as-is. If you write it in your own words here, then it can be inserted into the article.

Second, please don't call the abuse itself "pedophilia." That's the wrong use of that term. "Pedophilia" is the word for the attraction to prepubescent children (under 13). I'm not trying to be pedantic or anything, just that the misuse of this term is widespread and it screws up how this problem is studied because it muddles two separate issues together that need to be addressed separately.

Third, personally I feel the first body text section of this article more than addresses the damage the abuse can cause. If you read that section all the way through and feel something is missing, find a reliable source to support your claim, post it here and I will add it for you (I can edit this article because I started an account).Legitimus (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam missing?

This article seems to be missing a section about religiously inspired pedophilia, which can be found in Islam.

Girls: Mohammad himself - the perfect example for moslems - had sex with a nine year old girl (Aisha). Some islam-scholars see this age as valid today.

Boys: Pashtun areas have a religiously inspired covering of all non-family women, and women are more unclean because of menstruation anyway. So MANY men openly aquire young boys for sex. Source: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-29/opinion/22949948_1_karzai-family-afghan-men-president-hamid-karzai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

While some mention of this topic is warranted, there are a few issues:

My understanding was the tale of Mohammad and his 9 year old bride was largely apocryphal, some kind of peculiar metaphor for purity. I'm not a muslim so I cannot explain much more, but I have heard this interpretation from muslims. One person also pointed out that the Quran does not actually say she was 9 but rather some sort of third party source is where this story comes from. Further, I have yet to see a published muslim jurist (clerics who interpret law) declare 9 years old as a valid age of consent. For example, in largely muslim Bangladesh and Malaysia, the age of consent is 18.

Pashtun practice could be workable as material, but we need a better more reliable source than an opinion piece in a San Francisco paper. Also, they seem to represent a very small, twisted minority in Islam. If I recall correctly, in Iran a man caught doing such a thing is usually sentenced to death by getting stuffed in a potato sack and thrown off a cliff down a rocky slope.Legitimus (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text/graph mismatch

text "abuse in childhood were 2.93" should read "abuse in childhood were 2.83" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.61.100 (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a project to document male CSA survivor information/resources...here?

I'm a male survivor of childhood sexual abuse (CSA). I'm in close contact with a large number of people interested in CSA from a survivor advocacy, healing POV generally. We've recognized a need to collect a large amount of information of interest to us and others working in this area and a wiki seems like a good method. However, wikipedia is doing this a bit also on this page, has a vast (OMG!) infastructure to handle all kinds of issues that obviously come up. I've read quite a lot in the various guidelines for content and editors. (Wow...) We have a need to get pretty detailed however--"provide a central place for everything". Like, list and describe survivor self help web sites, describe a long list of organizations somehow a "stakeholder" in the issue via treatment, prevention, avocacy/awareness, etc. For example, there's not even a mention of "Stop It Now", an important prevention organization. That merits a few to a dozen paragraphs (on a different page obviously devoted to Stop It Now). Obviously this is relevant to more than just this wikipedia page (on CSA). There's really no limit to the detail, but I imagine it all to be more or less solidly in the "statement of fact" catagory, matching the guidelines I've been reading, with sources cited. Not clearly opinions, information about individuals (like a survivor diary or "story"). It's not clear to me if we should somehow work within this wikipedia community. Can you help me here? Of course, the devil is in the details, but does this seem like a good idea? What would limit the level of detail? On notability, creating new pages allows for a vast amount of detail. It's certainly of great interest to many people, but enough people? For example, I know of at least a dozen support groups for male survivors. A paragraph about this would interest some people: survivors themselves, mental health professionals but not wide interest. I need a clear sense of what to expect before I invest the time to organize a group of people and create a lot of content. Can you help me here? AllanEAnderson (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a general shying away from promoting specific organizations by name, simple due to the shear number of them out there and the desire to be fair. Perhaps, would you be interested in starting your own wiki for this subject? Wikia.com allows you to create your own wiki based on a specific subject, and if you are the starting member, you are the highest ranking adminstrator for that wiki.Legitimus (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to address that by including them all, in some kind of organized hierarchy with equal treatment. Initially as a skeleton and filled in over time. I think I could do that. And a separate wiki is certainly an option, but... there is so much here that is useful to this project, and it seems like something appropriate to the wikipedia, or could be adjusted to be. I agree with the neutral point of view, referenced facts, general tone here for my purposes.

Thanks for responding. You appear to be quite active in this talk page. I don't understand quite who to pose this question to, and how different desires are dealt with or harmonized. If I just went ahead and added a few pages and a dozen stubs, who would notice and care? Just, .....whoever takes the time to notice and care? I don't want to put a lot of time into something unwanted that's going to be deleted. AllanEAnderson (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it not a lot of users seem to check on this page much anymore (I think it's because the subject is so unpleasant) I just keep watch over it from time to time. I was hoping someone else with more authority on wikipedia policy and style (as opposed to subject matter like myself) would have responded by now.

I was not totally clear on what you were trying to do at first, but now I have a better idea. Did you notice the last External Link is an Open Directory Project page? It is an editable branching directory of all sorts of organizations and sites related to this subject, and more can be added. That said, I think a small section on the subject of organizations like the ones you mentioned could benefit this article, so I would go ahead and add it. Sometimes that's what you have to do to get attention drawn to a subject. WP:BE BOLD, the worst that could happen is it get's reverted and discussed further here.Legitimus (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ODP pointer. Helpful. Is it appropriate to say, make a short first attempt of an entry and describe what else you intend to include? That would let me "just go ahead and do it" while not investing immediately a ton of time to do it very well. Or is there another place for such remarks? Probably the talk page, yes. So, agreed. BE BOLD IT IS!

I have in mind much more than just these organizations. I propose we discuss and develop quickly an outline of changes, then get to creating it. Discuss and change, add to the following outline as you see fit. (Obviously discuss large changes or deletions before doing them... to be "nice"). This is just my first draft.

Example:

• Entry
  • Planned work

• Child Sexual Abuse
  • Re Disclosure: Add mention of male socialization inhibiting disclosure. Link to "Survivor of Child Sexual Abuse"
  • Prevention Add approaches to prevention encouraging disclosure (child focused, adult focused). Attempts to cause potential offenders to seek treatment. Link to Page:List of Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Organizations
• New Entry:List of Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Organizations
  • Stop It Now, etc. A potentially long list.
• New Entry:Survivor of CHild Sexual Abuse
  • Expand on CSA:Treatment:Adults in more detail.
  • Section: Male survivors. Disparity in services and awareness. Effects of male socialization, physiology,
  • Healing: General description of steps and resources for help. On-line, individual and group therapy, support groups, healing retreats (Weekends of recovery's) books.
  • Healing: List of survivor on-line support forums.
• New Entry:List of survivor on-line support forums.
  • Malesurvivor, After the Silence, Men Thriving, Pandora's Aquarium, Teen sites (is advertising this site wise?)

Requested edit

Please someone edit the page to the life-destroying, cruel and horrific effects of child sex abuse as follows:

Effects of child sexual abuse include guilt and self-blame, flashbacks, nightmares, insomnia, fear of things associated with the abuse (including objects, smells, places, doctor's visits, etc.), self-esteem issues, sexual dysfunction, chronic pain, addiction, self-injury, suicidal ideation, somatic complaints, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, other mental illnesses (including borderline personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder, propensity to re-victimization in adulthood, and physical injury to the child, among other problems. Victims of child sex abuse are over six times more likely to attempt suicide and eight times more likely to repeatedly attempt suicide. The abusers are also more likely to commit suicide. Much of the harm caused to victims becomes apparent years after the abuse happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.252.83 (talk • contribs)

Mostly unreliable sources, especially drlowenstein. Otherwise plausible, but possibly biased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This Dr Lowenstein is not who you think he is. This one is the President-Elect of the International Council of Psychologists and is incredibly highly qualified. I could give you all his qualifications and experience if you wish. The suggested edit is simply a statement of fact. --86.44.252.83 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

He would have to be a recognized expert in the field with peer-reviewed published papers. The ICP does not appear to be a professional organization, from the description on its web page, but Dr. Lowenstein may still be credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

He's published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.13.231 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Treatment always required?

The article seems to indicate that treatment is always required. As this is fairly trivially not the case (consider the difference across jurisdictions) perhaps this should be indicated? 78.147.165.64 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference #98 got broken link

The URL gives 404 in that site, seems the study was removed. Hope somebody with access to the page can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.67.150 (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have repaired the citation. The link now directs to the PubMed abstract. I believe the full article is technically copyrighted so there can be no direct link to the full text.Legitimus (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Freedom of speech and balance?

Wikipedia articles should always include a few good references to well-structured criticisms of society's definition and handling of controversial subjects or wikipedia succumbs to dogma. The entire article is locked down so it cannot be edited. There's not even a section documenting criticisms of societal responses to CSA by reputable commentators and researchers, hysteria surrounding CSA or criticisms of how CSA is defined. The article could at least overtly refer to wikipedia entries such as Day care sex abuse hysteria and False allegation of child sexual abuse in the actual body of the text instead of leaving this mention to 'See Also'. It's not as if there is no history of social hysteria, grave injustice and moral panic associated with the societal response to CSA or to how it has been defined and prosecuted. I realize that people are absolutely threatened by any references which might be construed as in any way criticizing the CSA status quo and will tend to deny these a voice at all costs, but, a small amount of balance please, not academic dogma! That is also in the interests of victims of CSA, who include the abused and the falsely accused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can edit this article since I have registered a username and established myself. But, I would need a place to start. Can you specify a source to begin with? Preferred are peer-reviewed papers that are written by experts such as sociologists or social psychologists. I can access most journals in full, so even if you only find an abstract, I will see what I can do.

If however this was just a drive-by rant with no intention of follow-up, your comments will be deleted within one week.Legitimus (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I was a bit strident. I think it will take longer than a week to get something together. I don't work in this field so I'm not the best person for the task but I know of at least one peer reviewed journal that has published criticisms of some of the frameworks applied to CSA. I also suspect that some people who do work in the field are loathe to criticize any plank of the CSA raft lest they find their careers suddenly shortened. I can think of one or two controversial commentators or journalists (and one politician even) who were brave (foolish) enough to have raised concerns about some aspect - generally this was in the 1990s. Whether it's an article about quantum mechanics or child sex abuse I would still expect to see some critique of some small aspect of the dominant paradigm - actually I had (perhaps wrongly) assumed something must have been included previously and edited out. A problem in this regard is that any critique of say the terminology used in CSA - even when published in a good journal - might get seized upon by pro-pedophile activists (*death knell sounds*) or labelled as some kind of attempted justification for pedophilia by others and dismissed or discredited either way. For example the main article for Rind et al should perhaps at least be mentioned even though it is widely reviled. There are papers that are less easy to dismiss though attacking say the manner in which the construction of CSA facilitated the day care and ritual abuse panics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make. CSA falls into several arenas; medical, legal, political, social. And there are bound to be problems with the common model in any of those (some much more than others). This makes addressing such matters in an already lengthy article a tad daunting. Though are you sure you concerns have not been addressed adequately in this article? I know it's long, but Rind et al. is mentioned already for example.Legitimus (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.30.63.18, 28 June 2011

Please review the information provided in this article. the statistics are not current and do not reflect the magnitude of this problem.

69.30.63.18 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is 26 print-pages long and has 176 different references. Can you be a little more specific?Legitimus (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered until poster gets back about the changes. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)}

Redundant and superfluous material

I reverted you because some of the info is redundant and superfluous e.g. indecent exposure covers pornography, "physicaly contact with the childs genitals" is covered by physical sexual contact. This part "except in certain non-sexual contexts such as a medical exam" is stating the obvious. The previous lede is too repetitive. Pass a Method talk 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?

The lede says indecent exposure is a form of child sexual abuse. However, this article only reflects western/christian culture. For instance, in the amazonian jungle or African jungle, there are tribes where being completely naked is the norm. In some middle eastern tribes, a girl showing her face is considered indecent exposure. Also, many naturists or irreligious people would say the human body is not indecent. Therefore this article seems to have a conservative western bias. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 09:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a contextual matter. It's less about the mere pretense of nudity and more about the intentions of the person exposing themselves. Don't confuse the legal definitions of indecent exposure with actual sexual exhibitionism, where the goal is sexual gratification of the person exposing themselves. A behavior that has been clearly documented among pedophiles is to deliberately expose themselves to young children as a form of sexual gratification. It's even mentioned in the DSM under that diagnosis (Page 571).

More importantly, the culture is very relevant because it colors the reaction of the victim too. While a child from a equatorial tribe may have no reaction to nudity because there is nothing strange about it. A child is a very conservative society would be extremely shocked at seeing nudity, and could suffer psychiatric problems. Neither culture is "right," but a person deliberately trying to victimize a child is going to behave in a way that violates the mores of their culture.

Legitimus (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Legitimus is right. There isn't much more that I can add. Indecent exposure of adults by adults has been shown to have traumatizing effects on children. And since pedophiles use this type of tactic to entice young children sexually, it is a form of child sexual abuse. It's true that not all forms of nudity are. For example, a person who didn't mean to or in cultures where walking around nude is the norm. But in the cases where it is an attempt to sexually entice young children or to do this to children for the simple means of sexual gratification, it most certainly has been categorized as child sexual abuse by researchers/experts. And no matter what we personally think of whether or not it is abuse, it is cited as abuse by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, a middle eastern woman exposing her elbow or knees is considered a child sexual abuser, because in the middle east that is considered part of her awrah (private parts). I could easily find reliable sources favoring my POV. As a compromise i suggest adding the words "In most western interpretations..." to the start of the sentence. Thoughts? Pass a Method talk 21:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If exposing the elbows or knees are considered "private parts" in some parts of the Middle East (I say "some" because the Middle East encompasses Western Asia and Northern Africa, and I doubt that they all go by that way of thinking), and a woman does that to a child in order to sexually entice that child, then, yes, that would be considered child sexual abuse by experts in the West. Now whether it would be considered so in the Middle East, I am not sure. But seeing as showing awrah is considered sinful and offensive, and such things are taken very seriously by those practicing Islam, I would assume so. Either way, unless you have reliable sources saying that such indecent exposure is not child sexual abuse in the Middle East, you cannot claim that it isn't. More importantly, what about their researchers? Do they have researchers studying child sexual abuse and pedophilia as extensively as the West does? If they do not, how can they possibly know what is and what is not harmful to children with regard to these matters adequately enough to claim that such a thing is not abuse? How is it that much different than the misinformation that was spread in Africa about safe sex and AIDS, due to their not having the same resources as the West, that led to the huge AIDS epidemic there?

If you don't believe that indecent exposure is harmful to children, which it seems you do not, I stress that experts disagree with you. You can call them "U.S. experts" or "experts of the West" all you want, but it's not just "the West" who have come to these conclusions about the effects of child sexual abuse. These things are not just based on "interpretations." Experts have seen such factors, including adults sexually exposing themselves to children, as having a traumatic effect on children time and time again. It's not just something made up by the experts. There are different types of indecent exposures to consider as well, such as a man taking off his clothing and masturbating in front of a child. Is that not child sexual abuse to you either? You mean to tell me that is only sexual abuse according to the West?

The wording "In most western interpretations" negates the fact that it's not just "the West" that recognizes some forms of indecent exposure as child sexual abuse. And if that exact wording cannot be sourced, we shouldn't use it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Im not saying indecent exposure is not hamrful. Im only disputing the emphasis on genitals. In some cultures female nipples are offensive; in some cultures female nipples are not offensive at all. In some cultures genitals are offensive, in some not. In some cultures feet are offensive, in some not. In some cultures a woman showing her face in public is offensive, in some not. Do you see my drift? Decency norms vary tremendously accross the world, and this article lede should reflect that. For instance, answer these questions;

• Do you think a woman exposing her nipples to a 9 year old boy is traumatizing a child?
• Do you believe a man exposing his anus to a kid is abusing a child?
• Is a woman wearing revealing clothing (e.g. a bikini) in front of a ultra-conservative Saudi child considered indecent exposure?
• If a child grew up in a naturist household/settlement, would he/she be negatively affected by indecent exposure then? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Its indecent exposure based on the intent. Dream Focus 09:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The DSM states that examples of behavior include "undressing the child and looking, exposing themselves, masturbating in the presence of the child, or gentle touching and fond ling of the child."

The phrasing therefore does not have to mention genitals, but can be written in a more generalized fashion. Abuse of children in various cultures is going to vary based on that culture. Just as certain behaviors would not be considered traumatic in some cultures, that lack of "shock value" would also make the abuser less inclined to gratify himself in that manner. But in the course of this discussion there comes a point where it is not our place to be dissecting the issue to this degree, but rather we are just reporting what science has found. Also, remember that most readers of this article are going to be living in the US, Canada, UK and Australia.Legitimus (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What does the abbreviation DSM stand for? Pass a Method talk 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, I know you are saying decency values vary by culture. Legitimus and I already went over that for you. Even Dream Focus has weighed in and has been clear that it is more so about intent. A woman exposing her nipples to a 9-year-old boy is not child sexual abuse unless her intent is to do so in a way that sexually entices the boy. And I can't think of any accidental or casual way that a man would just so happen to expose his anus to a child. So, yes, that is child sexual abuse. It's not like the anus is easily seen. Traumatizing is another matter, however. Even when there is not intent to sexually entice a child, nudity can have traumatizing effects on that child. But that, like you and Legitimus stated, depends on the culture. Legitimus has made this perfectly clear: Where walking around nude is normal, it's not exactly going to be traumatizing to a child to see an adult naked. But all that said, I don't believe that if it was "normal" for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children in one culture, that we should then say children there are not being sexually abused -- that it is not sexual and psychological trauma. Some things, like the effects of rape and adults having sex with prepubescent children, are universal. I specifically stated "prepubescent children" there...because there is no society that I am aware of that thinks it's okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children. While adults engaging in sex with those who have attained puberty is allowed in some countries, such as where the age of consent is as low as 14.

Anyway, I changed your wording of "with intent to shock" to "with intent to entice" because that is more accurate to what these offenders are trying to do, as shown by reliable resources. I was going to suggest we be specific with the wording as a compromise and because it is needed, so I of course agree with your attempting to be more specific. And the DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're going a bit off-topic here. I was speaking only about indecent exposure. You started speaking about sex with children. Nevertheless, you are mistaken about there being no society where "it's okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children". For example, in rural areas of Yemen, prepubescent marriage is common. Pass a Method talk 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, I know what you were speaking of. I went "a bit off-topic" clearly to make a point. Just because something is normal in one culture...doesn't mean it is not harmful. And this discussion is also about "sex with children" -- offenders exposing themselves in the hopes of becoming sexually intimate with children. We were informing you that this is an often seen characteristic of such offenders.

As for it being "okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children" in rural areas of Yemen, care to provide a reliable source for that? I would think something like that would be mentioned in the Age of consent or Marriageable age articles. I have studied the topic of child sexual abuse and pedophilia extensively, as well as topics about marriageable age. Legitimus has also studied child sexual abuse and pedophilia extensively, and we haven't read anything about sex with prepubescent children being condoned in any culture. In fact, the passage in the Marriageable age article states, "In practice, "Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them until the indefinite time they’re 'suitable for sexual intercourse'.", backed up by this source (which needs to be updated or changed). Call me crazy, but I assume "suitable for sexual intercourse" means "pubescent" in this case. It goes on to say, "Following the widely publicised divorce of a 10 year-old girl in 2008, there have been public and parliamentary efforts to raise the age to 17 or 18," backed up by three more sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I read more on the subject. I could hardly find anything about it on Google Books or Google Scholar, except this bit about child marriage, but this source (not sure how reliable it is) talks about it (and links to reliable sources). It attributes this matter to interpretation of religious texts that it is "okay" for men to engage in sex with prepubescent girls, and to the husband's interpretation of when the girl is "suitable for sexual intercourse." From more of what I read elsewhere, some men interpret it as waiting until she is pubescent, while others seem to think it is okay due to what they believe are the religious texts condoning it (even though Mohammad waited a few years, according to the pdf source above). I wouldn't expect that all these men are taking a child bride and then waiting until she is pubescent anyway. However, I believe that since this topic seems to be taboo in Yemen and there are now efforts to raise the marriage age there, it is not looked upon as perfectly acceptable. Not by all, and probably not by most. This is also one country out of many others. All other countries/cultures are clear in prohibiting sexual acts with prepubescent children. At least to my knowledge, which I admit wasn't as aware of this problem in Yemen. A variety of scholarly sources led me to believe that there are no cultures that condone sexual acts with prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To Flyer22. "with intent to shock" is wrong, I agree, since some people wave their butts at others to moon them, and there is streaking where people run around naked thinking it funny. But "with intent to entice" isn't accurate either, they usually just trying to get a sexual arousal themselves from the exposure, or intimidate the person, they not knowing how to respond, or doing a grooming period, letting them believe its normal and then moving onward from there. Dream Focus 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Could it be phrased "with the intent to gratify their own sexual desires or intimidate/groom the child"?Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Dream Focus 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording "with intent to entice" isn't inaccurate, from what I know of the subject. It's just not complete, which is why I am okay with Legitimus's wording; it is indeed more accurate since it encompasses the whole range. I also replied to PassaMethod a little higher. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To flyer22. I disagree with your assumption on different cultures. For example, in some parts of Japan, it is not uncommon to find erotic magazines depicting very young girls inside such magazines. Or for example in Saudi Arabia, prominent religious scholars are often seen issueing fatwas which promote pedophilia on national television. i.e. [23], [24]. Also in some sub-saharan African regions, tribal laws supersedes national law. Pass a Method talk 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You can disagree with "my assumption" all you want. But "erotic magazines depicting very young girls" does not equate to "actually having sex with prepubescent children is okay." Yes, Lolicon exists in Japan, but where is "sex with prepubescent children" condoned in Japan, other than in pedophile rings? Where is it shown that "sex with prepubescent children" is something these countries are generally A-okay with? Any reliable sources to support that claim? The first YouTube source you supplied is redundant to the islammonitor.org source I listed above, where it says, "...it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed... You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8. But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition." The second YouTube source is also redundant. And these sources still don't show where it is said that this is acceptable behavior by most people practicing Islam. From what I see, it's no different than us having pedophilia and pedophile rings in America. Most of America does not condone sex with prepubescent children. And I don't see where most Middle-Easterners condone it either. There have been protests against it there just as fiercely as there would be protests against it here. If "sex with prepubescent children" was even close to as acceptable as "sex with pubescents and post-pubescents" by the world, then I'd think that Yemen wouldn't be the only marriageable age in the Marriageable age article that says girls of any age can wed. Puberty also wouldn't be such a factor in age of consent laws. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see compelling, empirically collected data indicating sex with children is acceptable in any of these Muslim countries. This is all basically anecdotal evidence that is often misunderstood or blown out of proportion when reported here in the States due to, let's face it, a decidedly anti-Muslim climate.

Child marriages are far from the norm in any of these areas. Even when they do occur, the reason is primarily symbolic, not sex. Many times there is a dowry tradition at work (making the motivation greed basically), or the marriage is done as a way to unite hostile factions. Often times the bride doesn't even live the with groom until she has grown up. Yes, there are no doubt pedophiles among Muslims who's motivation is sex, but I do not see how they occur more frequently than pedophiles here in the US.

Most important though is they are not the norm and they are definitely not considered acceptable by most Muslims. I have seen plenty Imam condemn child marriage as a horrible practice that should be haraam.Legitimus (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See Bacha bazi for how it is legal and common in Afghanistan to sell prepubescent boys as sex slaves. I linked to a news article about that awhile back in one of the articles about this topic, but can't find it. Dream Focus 02:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I speak basic arabic and the second link shows a man called Muhammad al Arifi who is a very well known scholar in the Muslim world. He justifies child marriage because of Muhammads marriage to Aisha when she was 6 and was consummated at 9. This child marriage is well documented (in Sahih Bukhari etc) and hence considered completely authentic. Muslims emulate Muhammad's actions therefore an adult man marrying a child wont usually be criticized in conservative non-secular Muslim countries. Laws in some Muslim countries can be inconclusive and vague and secular laws and sharia often overlap. This is because in Islam you have a system called Ijma meaning consensus, which can result in a fatwa, which can overrule a national law. Therefore we should not give undue weight on the official "age of consent" which exists in muslim countries. Pass a Method talk 04:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I am aware of the sex slave issue. I'm quite certain that Legitimus is as well. Sex trafficking is a big part of child sexual abuse. But what I'm saying is that it being "legal and common in Afghanistan to sell prepubescent boys as sex slaves" does not equate to "sex with prepubescent boys or girls is perfectly or generally acceptable in Afghanistan." I have seen and read about many in Afghanistan speaking out against sex trafficking, especially with regard to children. It is not at all a generally condoned act. LGBT rights in Afghanistan#Homosexual practices with boys touches on why men engaging in sexual acts with boys (prepubescent or otherwise) is tolerated but not truly condoned in Afghanistan. The entire reason it is tolerated, by some, is because it is viewed as rape rather than homosexuality. Apparently, some in Afghanistan will tolerate rape of a boy before they tolerate what they consider "true homosexuality." As you know, child sexual abuse is common all over the the world. The main question in this current discussion is whether or not it is a generally condoned act in any culture. I have not seen that it is. And if we want to get more specific -- since some people, especially pedophiles, don't consider engaging in sex with prepubescent children to be abuse -- I have not seen evidence that engaging in sexual acts with prepubescent children is a generally condoned act in any culture.

PassaMethod, Legitimus knows that such things exist, but he is saying that sex with prepubescent children is not something that is perfectly or generally condoned in these Muslim countries. He's saying it's not "the norm," as in just as normal as sex between adults/adult marriages. And seeing as Legitimus has a great deal of knowledge about these subjects, I trust his word. Yes, plenty of Muslims emulate Muhammad's actions...but not all do. And just because a Muslim worships Muhammad...doesn't mean he or she agrees with child marriage. Clearly, all do not, when, as Legitimus stated, "I have seen plenty Imam condemn child marriage as a horrible practice that should be haraam." Also, some practicing Islam may agree with marriage to a prepubescent child, but not with having sex with a prepubescent child; as I stated above, some of these men believe in waiting until the girl is pubescent. Until I see evidence that having sex with prepubescent children is generally condoned in any of these countries, I will not believe that it is. Many people have been trying to rid these countries of sex slavery and child marriage, and that includes many of their citizens. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• What is the DSM was asked above. DSM is short for "Diagnostic mumble mumble" -- sorry I don't remember the exact title. It is a book length list of mental health disorders. Mental health professionals use it for diagnosis. In theory if someone manifests behavior not described in the DSM then mental health professionals would not consider them mentally ill.

  I believe political battles have been fought to include or disclude behavior patterns. If I am not mistaken homosexual behavior patterns, for instance, were once listed, and are no longer listed.

  If some really authoritative mental health references defines "indecent exposure", and say it is damaging to children, then I suggest we could all agree the article could say something like "The DSM defines indecent exposure as the purposeful exposure of one's sexual organs in order to achieve sexual excitement or sexual satisfaction ... that having been exposed as a child may trigger this disorder when individuals pass puberty." Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Another contributor wrote: "Also, remember that most readers of this article are going to be living in the US, Canada, UK and Australia." No, sorry, I do not agree that we should tailor our articles to the local accepted conventions of English speaking nations.

  Turn it around. Would it be acceptable for someone to argue on a talk page of the article on the Arabic wikipedia, "Also, remember that most readers of this article are going to be living in the Ummah, so we don't have to consider information from the USA, Canada, UK and Australia"? Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Child porn in Japan

I believe they have in recent times passed laws against the Lolicon that was so common in Japan, that the United Nations and others did criticize them for. Since that was mentioned above, I thought I'd make a separate section for it. I'll see if I can find the news report I saw, and update the Child pornography laws in Japan. They did state that Lolicon was creating a sexual interest in child and leading to abuse. Dream Focus 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That really is a topic best discussed elsewhere. There are several articles already devoted to the topic.Legitimus (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a boy abused by a woman less traumatic than a girl abused by a man?

I think a man abusing a girl would be more intrusive and damaging than a boy abused by a woman. Mainly because of (a) double standards in society which say a male receiving sex is admirable, and (b) because physically, it would probably not be painful for a boy to have intercourse with a woman. Pass a Method talk 11:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget same-sex abuse. With that included, you have 4 different types. You also have to factor in age ranges, both prepubescent and peri-pubescent. And the manner of the abuse (use of violence, object-rape, blackmail, abuse of trust). Also consider men and women often manifest different symptoms as the result of the abuse, or the same symptoms are reacted to differently by peers (e.g. sexual compulsion has a gender double standard, despite it being equally unhealthy for men and women). And if you think girls under-report abuse, boys are far worse.

From that matrix, as you can see is generally not possible to make a gross generalization based on gender alone. It does abused men a disservice to claim such a thing, for even if were supported even slightly in the data, it implies abused boys are less worthy of rights and empathy. It is effectively a form of minimisation. Legitimus (talk] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

I don't have any specific edits to suggest, but someone should really take a good, hard look at the section on the history of child sexual abuse. The claim that it was only recognized as a problem in 1970 is patently false. Between 1890 and 1920, and again between 1935 and 1960, the American public was positively obsessed with the problem of child sexual abuse. Between 1885 and 1895, twenty-two states had increased the age of consent to sexual activity from ten years to sixteen or eighteen years, while another ten states increased the age to fourteen years. The first laws prohibited child sexual abuse were passed around 1900. In the 1950s, J. Edgar Hoover was writing essays like, "Is Your Daughter Safe?" in American Magazine. See Philip Jenkins, Moral Panic: The Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America.

Cliffordrosky (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a very reliable article because it ignores and leaves out research proving a strong connection between drug use and tendency to abuse children. The data showed that all people who been convicted of child rape had been on drugs or drunk at the time. The fact this information is left out makes this article an unreliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such data showing that 100% of abuse is done by people on drugs or drunk. If you want data that you have found to be integrated into the article, please post it here so we can see for ourselves.Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no such data. BigHornPhD (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the cherrypicking?

Without any sources, this discussion is a waste of time

Why isn't the research presented here gathered in a non-biased fashion? In the article only one of the two major views on CSA are represented and the other is largely ignored? Cataconia (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Without a missing source or suggested edit, your statement is pointless. What specific changes do you suggest or what sources are missing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point. The point was that everyone who had a different view have been banned already and therefor the situation is as it is. The system is completely corrupt and nothing can be done but watching the decay. Cataconia (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I read your info, you seem to be one of the ritual abuse believers, I thought you guys where extinct. Cataconia (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point. Undue weight is demonstrated, not asserted. If you think the article is biased, you need to provide sources that substantiate your point. Your opinion is worth nothing without a source to back it up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What would happen then? I add the source. It gets deleted. I put it back, It gets deleted ... eventually I would get banned like so many before me because I lack admin powers and have few friends here who can ban my opponents before then ban me, I am banned, the article remains the same. So what to do? Should I spend a few years here lobbying, making friends, getting to know admins who will support me in the coming editing wars? Is that the only way to make a few changes to this article? Cataconia (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about this: why not post, let's say, a single paragraph that you want to change or add, right here on the talk page? (If it's a change, maybe post the before and after versions.) Then we can talk about it. That seems reasonable, are you willing and able to do this? Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just threatened with a indefinate block for arguing that a significant minority viewpoint should be allowed in the article. Seriously, is this the state of wikipedia. It's obvious I will be banned if I make a single edit (like so many others have before me), The only question that remains is: What do you guys get out of it? I doubt someone is paying you, so why? Cataconia (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What would people who aren't pedos have to gain from not pushing a pedo POV? That can't possibly be a serious question. N^oformation ^Talk 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith. Maybe you should take a few weeks of and ponder on what ideals and visions that Wikipedia was built on. Everyone picking on the newbie may not necessarily be in that spirit. Cataconia (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A simple example of the bias in the article

"A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al. generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm, that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as "consensual."[59] The study was criticized for flawed methodology and conclusions.[60][61] The US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities.[62]"

As a reader you are led to believe that the study was pretty much discredited scientifically and not much more than pedo-propaganda. However, it fails to mention the result of the independent review it got, the responses to the criticism and the support the study got from leading scientists.

In essense the whole article is written in a similar fashion. Most of what is written is more or less "true" and well sourced but the information has been cherrypicked to exclude any information that doesn't show a what is called victimological viewpoint. It completely fails to take into account competing viewpoints which are in a significant minority in the scientific community and thus should and ought to be represented in this and many other articles on wikipedia. Cataconia (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually working on that page now (Rind et al. controversy) and that is indeed an inaccurate summary that needs to be corrected. Congress did condemn it, it was criticized for its flaws, but the criticisms appeared to be inappropriate if not downright wrong. Rather than focusing on the controversy, which is somewhat tangential to the study results, a simple summary of the study might be a better idea.

Anything else? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A simple summary of the article without mention that it has serious methodological flaws, as other peer-reviewed articles describe, does not meet criteria for being verifiable and unbiased. BigHornPhD (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The user Cataconia has been blocked indefinitely by the administrators of wikipedia for his or her various disruptive behaviors on talk pages.Legitimus (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you.BigHornPhD (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

POV-check

Hey guys, I added the POV-check tag because this article appears to be lacking in NPOV. Some major issues are a complete lack of coverage on the causal effects, there have been lots of discussion on that topic, of which no mention can be found in the article. The whole article seem to have been stripped of any criticism of the CSA hypotheses, which is strange given that such discussions are frequent in mainstream science. NPOV cannot be assumed at this point. Juice L 17:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "CSA hypotheses." This article covers the whole spectrum, including violence. Be warned, this is a main article, and is held to a very high standard. While some alternate views are being tolerated for Rind et al due to it's low traffic, they will not be so welcome here.Legitimus (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Juice Leskinen has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet, and contributions should be critically evaluated in light of that. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wo! "alternative views" will not be welcome here is straight out censorship! If they are (and thats a big if) RS sources with another away then it certainly should be here.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate views must also comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. And besides Rind (which has it's limitations), there isn't any other RS supportive of the alternative view that the blocked user was trying to further.Legitimus (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of research apart from Rind. Before and after Rind. Legitimus knows this, because the article once featured such research. The article has since then been censored for god knows what reason. MichelleBlondeau (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So there should be no problem naming a scholarly, peer-reviewed study (not an editorial paper) as an example that you can place here on the talk page. It's very simple.Legitimus (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request

can someone add this source to the page? it's from the BBC quoting the NSPCC (a UK child protection charity) whose statistics reported that "Girls were more than six times more likely to be assaulted than boys, with 86% of attacks taking place against females, the figures showed." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13542007 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8477726.stm 86.150.166.130 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is significant ambiguity in the comment that: "global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males" - are those percentages of perpetrators (unlikely) or victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

I was wondering if anyone could find some statistics concerning the effects of child sexual abuse. There's already a figure showing how much different forms of abuse increase the probability of a woman developing various symptoms, but no actual percentages. Are there any studies that show the percentage of victims who develop specific symptoms, or even better showing these percentages separated by the nature of the abuse and/or gender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.49.192 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not likely. Personal and psychiatric outcome aren't like Newtonian Mechanics. There are a lot of variables that make it almost impossible to have precise, accurate predictions. You have for example: if the abuse was single incident or sustained over the course of years, if it was reported, how that report was responded to (e.g. loving and supportive, ridicule, victim-blaming, complete indifference), availability and participation in therapy, length of therapy, therapist's competence in dealing with the abuse, genetic predisposition to certain psychiatric features, etc. There's no magic formula that gives you a probability of a certain outcome in psychology.Legitimus (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Some current issues with the article

Reading over the article, I have a few issues still with the current state of the article. First, why is there no definition section that goes into detail about what is child sexual abuse. The only definition is in the intro when there really should be a section dedicated to defining it in greater detail. The section should cover the fact that their are clinical/scientific definitions of CSA used in conducting studies on CSA and providing treatment to CSA victims. There is also the law which defines certain acts as CSA. It is my possible for something to be considered CSA under the law without it being considered so by most researchers/psychiatrists due to the fact that laws very from country to country and what constitutes CSA under the law is heavily influenced by societal and religious views. I think there should be a separate definition section before the "Effects" section.

Second, there are several places where the article confuses minors in general with minor under the age of consent. To start, the intro mentions "Under the law, "child sexual abuse" is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification. The part in bold in somewhat inaccurate, at least for large part of the world and even the U.S. Where the age of consent is below the age of 18, it is not true that law enforcement calls an adult who has consensual sex with a minor above the age of consent but below 18 (and thus still a minor) as CSA. The same applies to the line in the pedophilia section that reads "Law enforcement and legal professionals have begun to use the term predatory pedophile,[120] a phrase coined by children's attorney Andrew Vachss, to refer specifically to pedophiles who engage in sexual activity with minors.". Again, they don't use it to the best of my knowledge to refer to adults have sex with a minor is above the age of consent but still a minor.

Third, in the subsection "Research factors", the way the Rind et el study is describe has one major issue. It states that "The study was criticized for flawed methodology and conclusions." which falsely implies to me that there was a majority of researchers felt the study's methodology was flawed when the linked sources don't support that implication. I think the statement should be more specific as to who criticized it has having flawed methodology.

Fourth, the section on international law states "An adult's sexual intercourse with a child below the legal age of consent is defined as statutory rape,...". This statement has several issues with it starting with the fact that few legal codes use the term "statutory rape". Second, in common usage the term is used to refer to sex between an adult and adolescent under the age of consent but past the start of puberty. Sex between an adult and a prepubescent child is generally referred to as child molestation. It may be true that there are some CSA laws that use the term statutory rape and define to very broadly such that it includes sex with prepubescent children (not just adolescents) but not all do, if they even use the term at all. --Cab88 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review my revert..

Can someone who is comfortable with referencing formats please review my revert here. I reverted because of the changes made to the references, but I'm afraid I may have been a bit oversensitive. Feel free to unrevert if it looks ok to you. --Versageek 22:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The user making the changes is a University student who is doing this for a school project. So far, the intentions and content seem good and the reference are not actually being removed, just moved to make room for the new content.Legitimus (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted myself.. there is one reference change that I know needs fixing (a direct link to a WP page), but it was the changes from semi-meaningful names to numbers for refnames that made me most concerned. --Versageek 00:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatting-wise, I don't like the changes the student made. There are now too many examples of the effects of child sexual abuse in the lead. And it's usually not necessary to divide sections up into such small subsections (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs), but doing so may be justified in this case. Some of the references need tweaking as well. I've already tweaked some of the student's edits. But other than the issues I mentioned (and the ones seen with my aforementioned edit), the information that was added is fine.

On a side note, the student could probably benefit from a Welcome template added to his or her talk page. Most of the time, these students show up for drive-by editing or very short-term editing and never return, so a Welcome template may be ignored. But it's still better to add one. If it's a class that shows up, then we'll have to guide them. One thing that's frustrating about students showing up to edit, especially as a class, are drastic changes made without discussion and most of those changes needing to be cleaned up. Sometimes, the changes may need to be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree! It's great when they take on an article that is not much more than a stub, or when the quality is not very good. But even in quite good articles, they tend to wipe out whole sections that were created in a collaborative effort previously and replace it with their own writing. Lova Falk talk 09:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Lova Falk. And that issue has been discussed a lot on Wikipedia, such as at WP:MED. I discussed the issue with an editor in November and October of this year because I wondered if there is a page about how to handle classes that show up to drastically change articles for a class or school project. As you know, I'm familiar with this type of thing at the Adolescence article. But I wondered how best to handle such a situation if I were to deal with a class at an article that is of WP:GA or WP:FA quality. These classes should discuss drastic changes on the article talk pages first, not just note on those talk pages that they will be drastically changing things. In the case of some articles, I know that there are either no watchers of the article or no watchers of the article who are still active or care that much about the article, and therefore there won't be responses to the class on the talk page. But the class should still try to make an attempt to collaborate with preexisting editors of the article. I was told that the Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors page has an infobox that leads to American and Canadian education programs and that figuring out who's the online ambassador is likely one way to approach this type of issue. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And in some cases, I also know that the students don't have much time to discuss anything because the assignment is simply a one-day assignment or a 2-3 day or week assignment, which is yet another issue. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the November 15 edits by "Priscilla" should be reverted entirely. Priscilla or someone else can try again with smaller scale changes. Several journal cites were eliminated and replaced with multiple references to a general circulation newspaper (the UK-based Independent). The article already gives prevalence data in the lede, carefully identifying the source, such that the "one out of four" claim cited to this newspaper is either redundant or conflicting. All references to animal cruelty were eliminated despite the fact that if you search scholar.google.com for animal cruelty and "sexual abuse" you get a lot of hits, especially in regard to victimized boys. Several jurisdictions have mandated cross-reporting of animal and child abuse between animal health care providers and child protection agencies because of the research. In place of this the reader is directed no less than five times to sleep disturbances (which before November 15 were not mentioned at all): as both a short term and long term effect in the lede, in the body of the article as a short term effect, and as the topic of a whole section as a long term effect. It's then claimed in a section on "revictimization" that "sleep-induced impairments may further contribute to victimization" because "sleep problems lower the inhibitions and impair cognition," a claim that is likely confusing correlation with causation, in my view. The one study being cited here ought to be backed up by more studies if this is going to be given such a high profile, and by more studies I mean studies that identify sleep disturbance as independent from depression. Although Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, I still think it's worth noting here that the sleep disturbance article make no mention of abuse in its long list of possible causes, in contrast to the animal cruelty article, which notes that "children who are cruel to animals have often witnessed or been victims of abuse themselves. In two separate studies cited by the Humane Society of the United States roughly one-third of families suffering from domestic abuse indicated that at least one child had hurt or killed a pet." While most of the studies finding a link to animal cruelty focus on family physical abuse, some find a link even if the abuse is only sexual abuse of a child.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

C'mon

"Prior to this point in time sexual abuse remained rather secretive and socially unspeakable."

Objectivity please? Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.209.178 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I put a cn-tag behind this sentence. I think it's true though. Lova Falk talk 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinion about the Mayo Clinic reference and some comments

This is a personal opinion. I would suggest remove that reference because of credibility issues. If you can access the PDF file you would find some flaws there.

1. The article has fundmental conceptual errors. In page 2:

"Technically, individuals who engage in sexual activities with pubescent teenagers under the legal age of consent (ages 13-16 years) are known as hebophiles (attracted to females) or ephebophiles (attracted to males)."

Do you guys notice the very obvious erros? I don't think the references(by Blanchard, etc.) it referred to would say something like "engage in sexual activities" to define any paraphillia. Also, Hebephilia and Ephebophilia are defined by age, not sex. I am really wondering how this article could possibly pass peer review....

2. When the article claims that

"An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia."

It cited to both APA fact sheet of pedophilia and Abel study. However, APA fact sheet simply does NOT have this data. You can search for it yourself. Also, the number in Abel study is 65 % and not 88 %, which is corrected in the main article.

Finally I have some personal comments about the Abel study. The link is here:

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

In page 9 you could find how they define the pedophile. They claim they use the "lengh of time of behavior" (which is the length of molestion). Do you find it sounds slightly different than DSM-IV-TSR, en? Check this article by Seto(Pedophilia , Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2009) :

"pedophilia could only be diagnosed if the person was subjectively distressed or socially, occupationally, or otherwise impaired by his or her sexual interest. In other words, in the DSM-IV, an individual who was sexually attracted to children and who acted on that attraction would still not meet the diagnostic criteria if he or she were not concerned about the attraction to children and had not suffered any problems in daily life as a result."

Blanchard (Archive Sex Behavior, 2008) and Seto(Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2009) all talked about the reliability in diagnosing pedophilia. Those are not quite relavent to child sexual abuse but could be potentially helpful for "pedophilia" main article. I am really curious why the Abel study did not appear in any peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeofmagnus (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Good comments Eyeofmagnus, thank you! Which sentences in the wikipedia article would you like to change, and how, with which new source? (The page is semi-protected so I guess you cannot edit it directly, but if you suggest the edit here I can put it in for you) Lova Falk talk 08:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lova Falk. I would suggest remove that paragraph that has the Mayo clinic reference. I do not find the "95%" number in the Abel study. Also, the "65%" is already only for male who molested children 13 years old or younger. In the Abel study they EXCLUDED those offenders whose victims were adolescents, as well as female offenders. If you want to leave some numbers there, just directly cite the Abel study. Also, you could probably include this sentence from Blanchard(Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:304–316 DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9536-0): "It is now widely accepted that not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are child molesters (e.g., Konopasky & Konopasky, 2000; Seto, 2002)." and possibly the reference it cited.(Sorry I do not know how to format) Eyeofmagnus (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence and I will look into inserting the other sentence - but not just now, because I'll be on my way. Lova Falk talk 10:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this earlier, because I was waiting to see if Legitimus would weigh in on it. Eyeofmagnus has obviously made some valid points. But I don't feel that this the Mayo Clinic source can be called unreliable, not largely anyway, or "not good."[25][26][27] It passes WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS, includes a ton of reliable references, and is mostly accurate from what I can see. Yes, it uses the wording "individuals who engage in sexual activities" for hebephilia and ephebophilia, which aggravates me because chronophilias are defined by the sexual attraction, usually the strength of sexual attraction, as in a primary or exclusive sexual attraction, instead of by the sexual act, but that text is backed to the Abel GG, Harlow N....Blanchard R , Barbaree HE....and Stone TH , Winslade WJ , Klugman CM sources; it also uses the word "attracted" in that same sentence, and the Mayo Clinic source uses the words "sexual interest" when further speaking of hebephilia, which, although not specifying a primary or exclusive sexual attraction, shows that it's going by sexual attraction. Earlier, it also makes it very clear that pedophilia is defined by sexual attraction, not by the act of child sexual abuse, although pedophilia usually comes with child sexual abuse. It states that pedophilia "is not a criminal or legal term, such as forcible sexual offense, which is a legal term often used in criminal statistics."

So the only flaws that I currently see with the Mayo Clinic source are the following: It doesn't specify that hebephilia and ephebophilia are about the sexual preference (primary or exclusive). I would also mention that it's off in the rest of its definition of those two terms, but those two terms are very often defined differently by some sources anyway (I mean the age range aspect, and how it limits hebephilia as attraction to females and ephebophilia as attraction to males), and it does state that hebephilia "is becoming a generic term to describe sexual interest in either male or female pubescent children." So the second flaw, if the Abel study uses 65%, and the 88% and 95% numbers are not in there at all, are the 88% and 95% numbers. But does any of this mean that we shouldn't use the Mayo Clinic source at all? Disregarding its above reported mistake regarding the Abel study, the source is only going by what other sources have stated. And different sources about pedophilia and/or child sexual abuse have different things to state; some have different percentages, while others have the same or close to the same percentages.

Since James Cantor is an expert in this field and works with Ray Blanchard, I'll ask him to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this field, however, "It is now widely accepted that not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are child molesters" is also what I have heard. Anyway, I thought Eyeofmagnus made a valid point and I made the edits, but please feel free to revert them anytime. Lova Falk talk 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the "not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are child molesters" aspect, and neither is the Mayo Clinic. It's a true factor, considering that pedophilia is usually defined by experts in the medical/scientific community as a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and child sexual abuse cases don't always include prepubescents or those who look prepubescent. I have stated the "not all child molesters are pedophiles" factor time and time again at Wikipedia. But there are reliable sources that state that most child molesters are pedophiles; other reliable sources of course differ on that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, folks. Flyer22 asked on my talk page if I would take a look here, which I am happy to do. The conversation above seems to have come to where I would recommend: Those specific cites certainly meet WP's RS policy, but the also contain some statements which do not reflect the overall literature. The terms used in the literature are not used uniformly, and there are top authors and associations that use different definitions. Although they have the same basic meaning (sexual interest or preference for children), there is less agreement about where the boundaries are. Complicating matters still more is that there are multiple social or political thinkers whose opinions are based on the social rather than the scientific implications of what counts as what. I find myself coming back to something I wrote a while ago:

"I am personally of the opinion that the existing peer-reviewed data pertaining to hebephilia support the existence of hebephilia as a taxonometrically meaningful category on par with the evidence that supports other categories already listed in major diagnostic systems. Regarding the value judgment, the many and opposing values cannot be decided by science. Franklin is entirely free to her view, as are the many other stakeholders—victim-advocates, an anxious but often misinformed public, policy-makers who are often pressured to make snap and sometimes ill-conceived decisions, professional providers of defense testimony (a group Franklin does not mention among those with a potential financial interest), advocates for the fair treatment of offenders, and even alternative sexuality advocates who philosophically reject the idea that any sexual interest (including hebephilia and pedophilia) should ever be deemed a mental illness. These and many other groups have the freedom to consider their social and political values in deciding how to apply scientific knowledge in the public policy arena. But to employ propaganda-style journalism where objective scholarship should be would be the quintessence of pretextuality."

That article is available for downloading for free from: [28] .

— James Cantor (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As always, thanks, James. I really do very much appreciate it when you take the time to weigh in on these things on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to! — James Cantor (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

James, two more things: Can you clarify anything about the percentages issue mentioned above? And do you feel that we shouldn't use that Mayo Clinic source for anything in this article? We also currently use it in the Pedophilia article, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem (and I'm sorry for my delay). I would not make the claim that such a large proportion of child molesters are genuinely pedophilic (or hebephilic). Although there is still the occasional RS article that makes such claims, the great majority of the literature gives proportions somewhere around a third. It also depends on what kind of sample is used. Offenders against male children are more likely to be pedophilic than offenders against female children, offenders against extrafamilial children are more likely to be pedophilic than are incest offenders, etc.

I don't have an all-in or all-out opinion about the Mayo article. It does indeed have some misstatements in it, so each statement would need to be evaluated on its own. (Although that very lack of reliability might suggest that that article not be used.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for coming back and replying on that. Good points. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding removal of the section "In non-Western, tribal cultures"

The section was created by me on Nov. 30th and removed by Legitimus on the same day. Legitimus states regarding this that "rm, argument for cultural relativism; besides plenty of evidence suggests these children are harmed i.e. Malinowski states RAPE of girls under 7 is common, notes other trauma." If there is evidence that Trobriand children are harmed from being masturbated by adults (I didn't write about rape anywhere), than my last sentence for that section should be removed. (Also, in this respect, a section/paragraph on child sexual abuse and trauma in non-Western, tribal cultures, will be beneficial.) However, as I see it, all other information regarding children frequently observing adults having sex in several other tribes, should be kept. Finally, what's the deal with the "argument for cultural relativism"? Is there something inherently biased about presenting evidence which may suggest that children of other cultures are not harmed by socially acceptable practices which in the West constitute sexual abuse and tend to be traumatic?Q42Dqv (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit hasty, as this is worthy of discussing. My hackles initially came up because I have observed this exact subject area (and some of the sources) being misused or misrepresented so much. That is to say, child molesters and pedophiles often use cultural relativism arguments like this to justify themselves, sometimes even a court of law after they have sexually assaulted a child. That said, you're probably right that is still worth mentioning.

One very important matter that needs rephrasing is the claim that harm is not suffered. This is fallacious because there is no proof there is no harm. In a subject like this with overwhelming proof of harmfulness in modern medicine, I feel the burden of proof goes the other way. I would also point out that some sources reporting on this do seem to indicate there is harm and noticeable negative effects within the society that would not be present of the practice were to go away.

One lesser issue is on sourcing too. I've not read the specific sources cited, but know of several other cases where the modern (mostly 17th-19th century) explorer studying primitive cultures mis-reported that culture's sexual practices, either by misunderstanding, or deliberately to support some kind of ulterior motive (either religious conversion or to align with the explorer's own deviant sexual interests).Legitimus (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding Ligitimus. So what do you think of restoring the section that I wrote, with the important exception of replacing the last sentence with something like this: "The question of whether such practices cause psychological damage to the children involved, remains open." I believe this would be better than saying nothing on this matter; as this will encourage other editors to find sources in favor or against the supposition that such practices are damaging. Also, all the sources that I cite, except for Malinowski, are of the research conducted in the second half of the 20th century. The diaries of 17th-19th century explorers are generally not taken seriously by modern anthropologists. In fact, Malinowski was one of the first (and the most highly regarded) to argue and demonstrate with his fieldwork that such amateur sources and research do not and cannot give us any reliable knowledge of exotic cultures. Since then a lot of work has been done in anthropology aimed at developing methods for reducing chances of misrepresentation of other cultures.Q42Dqv (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire section is ridiculous. The first two sentences have little to do with the subject of the article. The third sentence -- sheesh, again with the Trobriand Islanders. Ah I don't think a tome entitled "The Sexual Life of Savages" is exactly a normal title for an up to date scholarly work, hmm? Malinkowski is not a reliable source, and the various anecdotal tall tales by illiterate seaman and so forth even less so. On top of that, the Trobriand Islands are an extremely marginal location with a society that has been highly stressed and not really functioning normally since Western contact, so what does any of that have to do with anything anyway? Really, if you have to ride the hobbyhorse of one book written a hundred years ago about some marginal islands in the middle of nowhere, even if it was accurate (which is very doubtful), you're pretty desperate. Thanks but no thanks. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the Trobriand Islanders or about anthropology generally. If there is something of note here that's relevant then an article in an academic peer reviewed journal should be citing it in the context of contemporary understanding of child sexual abuse.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"In a subject like this with overwhelming proof of harmfulness in modern medicine, I feel the burden of proof goes the other way" How would one offer this proof? The current state of affairs prevents anyone from conducting research on the matter because any situation that could possibly be observed to gain said proof would be illegal to begin with. Social stigma and law effectively makes such research impossible, so all we've to go on is what we already have, and based on that, we judge anyone who comes forward claiming to not have suffered harm from such a relationship to be aberrant or suffering a type of trauma that they are themselves not aware of, their non-negative experience would be otherwise considered inadmissible to the body of information at large, or they are just plain ignored. Your demands for proof cannot be met because no one has the ability to legitimately do research to give it, and anyone attempting to do so even if they were given a chance to do so legally would likely be judged to be doing so out of self-interest or ulterior motives, destroying their credibility anyway (and making whatever results they get worthless). The proof that it is harmful is only overwhelming because it's the only kind of proof that can be put forward, since all of it comes from reported criminal cases in which harm was indeed suffered. If you're going to put the burden of proof on those who would argue its neutrality (and that it, like any other interaction between humans, depends on the people involved), or even what positive effects sexual interactions they hypothesize it may have (unthinkable, I'm sure, but there are people who would argue otherwise, and aren't pedophiles - or even old enough to be considered pedophiles) then you should offer a method of submitting said proof as well, one that won't land our would-be researchers in prison or destroy their credibility as researchers at that.

Case in point, the only thing that comes to mind which could offer proof otherwise is designing an experiment that would involve studying numerous people over the course of their childhood and adult lives, with each group introduced to sexual interaction at varying ages. You would also have to control for other at home influences, like income, race, the philosophies/religious associations and parenting styles of their parents, culture, location, etc. etc. so the sample size would have to be pretty large. You would have to get the agreement of the parents of each of these children, and for those whom would be introduced to sexual interaction during the course of the study, possibly assigned partners which could also vary between groups (as being someone who they trust or don't even know will have an impact on the psychological results), some for whom a natural approach is taken (where the researchers do nothing to instigate or deter sexual interactions) and some for whom the researchers actively deny access to sexual interaction. Even if you could get this kind of research going legally, just how many parents do you think are going to allow their kids to be subjected to this sort of observation? And for the ones that do, there would have to be background checks. Are they pedophiles? Do they have a vested interest in proving sexual interactions between children to be non-harmful? What about deviations of any other sort?

It's really easy to say that the burden of proof falls on the other guys, since they're crippled by an utter lack of resources and research itself other than waiting for someone to come forward and tell you a story (which can't always be taken at face value) is outright illegal, there's literally no way for them to offer any said proof, thus creating a self propagating cycle that reinforces current beliefs. Personally I don't care for pedophiles or whatever silly misconceptions they seem to have (I've read some of the 'boylove' and 'girllove' articles here) but speaking as a person who used to think as a child that the only reason sexual activities were kept between adults was because they were conspiring to keep it as some sort of exclusive adult club (hey, I was a kid) I have to raise my eyebrow at the idea that it's always harmful. And yet as a child and even now I couldn't even begin to prove that there was no harm to sexual interactions between children because I was utterly terrified of the repercussions of even indicating that I could perhaps maybe not quite entirely agree with that way of thinking. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.

In the interest of keeping this relevant, is there any way this could be mentioned on the article? The rather one-sided nature of our current evidence regarding child-sex abuse? 184.77.82.208 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright let's play your game smartypants. I've heard that guns kill people and are very dangerous so you should never point one at another person unless you intend to kill them. Here's my experiment. I'm gonna load my Taurus 608 with one bullet, spin the cylinder, point it 7 different people and pull the trigger. Worse case scenario one person is maimed or dies. Just one! It's no big deal, that's 12.5%. And in ideal circumstances, nobody at all even get's hurt! That doesn't prove guns are dangerous. I should totally be allowed to point a partially loaded firearm at people as long as I don't intend to hurt anyone. Yeah sure hundreds die every year from legally documented gun accidents, but that's doesn't prove I should be allowed to do it because look at all the times people do it and nobody get's killed. 174.252.104.206 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm no smartypants; the fact that I can't come up with a legal method of even researching whether or not all sexual interactions involving children are harmful is evidence of that. But your reaction only proves my point; that children and sex simply can't be thought of as anything other than harmful, because you're comparing it to pointing a loaded gun at someone. But let's play your game, then. Due to various grammatical errors I'm having a hard time understanding what you're even saying, but it seems to me you're implying that even if there are a number of people who don't get shot by the loaded gun that's pointing at them, there is the fact that one of them might, and the fact that it's only 12.5% doesn't mean that guns aren't dangerous.

Here's what you don't seem to understand: I never said child sexual abuse wasn't dangerous. I said that it's hard to prove that not all sexual interactions involving children are abuse. And it is, it's very hard to prove, because there are no legal methods to do so, and any "proof" obtained illegally is inadmissible. A more accurate metaphor would thus be: people are pointing guns at others; some of them are water guns, and some of them are real firearms with loaded ammo. The people with water guns are being treated as if they are using regular weapons simply because no one can even do the research (Hint: it's outright illegal) to see that a water gun is harmless; all even remotely gun-shaped objects are treated as lethal weapons without question. If you could do the research then you could see okay, this thing is made of plastic, it is clear, it is orange. It has water inside; it can't possibly kill someone. But no one even has the chance to do that. Is it shaped like a gun? Yes? Then that person is a bloodthirsty killer and anyone hit by whatever came out was fatally wounded, even if they themselves don't think so. Now, let's add on to their trauma by interrupting their lives with therapy, psychiatrists, and social stigma, until they accept the fact that this horrible experience of being sprayed by water was indeed as horrible and life altering as being filled with organ collapsing bullets.

Child sexual abuse can easily have very clear negative psychological effects on a person, that's not at all in question. But the idea that literally all sexual activity involving a child is psychologically harmful - which this article indicates - is questionable. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to question it. I think this lack of ability to do any research on the matter that would provide evidence counter to what we already believe, is notable enough to be included, given it is effectively impeding the scientific process.184.77.82.208 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not trying to say that even the majority of sexual relations between children and adults are harmless. After all, it's much far more likely for an adult to approach a child with sexual desires and neither thoughts for the child's well-being or their own desires; adults are simply more likely to have sexual desires than children, and they are the ones with the authority. But even if it's less than 1%, it's worth noting, and what if it's more? We'll never know. Blanket generalizations like this are why laws regarding things like sexting treats children themselves as hard criminals. 184.77.82.208 (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Educator Sexual Misconduct

That statement being supported by footnote 167 is incorrect, and even the report cited states something different than claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate which part is incorrect? The source is a 156 page document and I didn't add this info myself, but if you could provide details I can check and correct it. Thanks. Legitimus (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just, Melvin: Just Evil (2000)

It seems this film is not mentioned anywhere on English Wikipedia. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240641/ --95.34.150.242 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Should most of this be deleted?

"Studies show between 5% to 30%" "Studies show anywhere from 0.4% to roughly 33%" "Studies show Between 40% to 95%"

That doesn't sound very factual to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.159.168 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent UK cases

There have been many child abuse and grooming rings in the UK in recent years, which seem to have gone ignored on here, almost certainly as they don't fit a PC agenda in the same way as attacking the Catholic Church does. Time for an edit for what has gone on in Rotherham, Oxford etc - they are victims too, and the cases raise issues regarding inadequate guidelines and poor enforcement--MartinUK (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule this topic is so rampant and broad that mentioning specific cases ends up being problematic. The article would be flooded with cases. There is also a risk of Recentism. Very large notable incidents would be in their own separate articles. Mention is possible in this article, but it is highly recommended that they be sourced to high level academic papers, not news media.Legitimus (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples from History

I'm wondering about the acceptance of man-child sexual relations in the past. I remember reading in a play by Aristophanes about man-boy sexual relations, and it sounded like it was common but disparaged. The other major example is the Prophet Muhammad, who consummated his marriage with his 9-year-old wife Aisha. He also said that virtuous men would be waited on by naked little boys in heaven. Bostoner (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This topic has been covered before in one form or another (see the archive in the top-right), but one problem is what we would even do with this information. Historical examples all seem to lack adequate descriptions of mental health outcomes. It's just as valid to assume these children were scarred for life and suffered all the consequences modern children do, but all the written works were by "perpetrators." There is also some evidence that these past events are not what they seem, contrary to the popular re-telling of them. Examples: Aisha was 18 in some interpretations based on her date of death compared to other time-points (the numbers 6 and 9 were intended as symbolic). And the Greek "boys" referred to in classical literature were around 16-20, not little children, as can be seem clearly in paintings where the "boy" is the exact same height has his "man" lover, and the "boy" simply lacks a beard.Legitimus (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the stats are a bit confused

The vast majority of child abuse cases involve none-pedophiles. In fact close to 30% of pre-pubescent child sex abuse cases involve none-pedophiles.

I think the stat actually is that 70% of pre-pubescent child sex abuse involve pedophiles. But the article sort of implies that 70% of all child abuse cases involve pedophiles. The mistake has possibly come from the definition of "children". In most clinical articles, and studies into pedophilia, they're referring to pre-pubescent children.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied to you here about this. It's not even generally clear to researchers that most people who have sexually abused a prepubescent child are pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And either way, like I told you before, we go by WP:Verifiability (a policy). Not what we believe. Our beliefs should not serve as sources on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. But verification is only valid if it's up-to-date and relevant - ie articles are always superceded, like any discipline. They go out of date.

In this article it argues the term Pedophilia is used in all child molestation cases. But pedophilia isn't even a criminal or legal term used in US law. It's simply a clinical diagnosis of a sexual offender in rape cases. ie it's only used if they've been diagnosed as a pedophile. It also claims "predatory pedophile" isused in child molestation cases. The only verification is a use of the term, once, in an actual pedophilic case. As in the victim met the criteria for the rapist to be classed as a pedophile, hence the classification.

Cjmooney9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't be discussing this data matter with you in two different places. Read those past discussions and see what the deal is on this. And do not violate Wikipedia's policies. But, just for clarification, where does this article argue that "the term Pedophilia is used in all child molestation cases"? With regard to this, neither version does that. And the sources in this article, when referring to pedophilia, by far concern the clinical aspect of pedophilia and do not engage in the incorrect use of the term pedophilia aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Relation to child marriage

I have added a line in the lede about child marriage, because this is one of the main causes of CSA at a global level - UNICEF has even stated that child marriage may be the most common setting where CSA takes place. I think that the article needs to discuss this in detail; there's a lot of literature on this subject. CSA in the context of child labor should also be discussed.Skydeepblue (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

very good point. Maybe a section on the article about this. Do you have a citation for the UNICEF statement? DanAtAGlance (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Apostrophe required

The article is locked for editing, but "the abused subjects verbal SAT scores" should read "the abused subjects' verbal SAT scores". 86.159.197.174 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)