Jump to content

Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Old discussion

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- male circumcision as sexual abuse?

The title of this article sounds like the children are the ones doing the abusing. Wouldn't Sexual abuse of children make more sense? -- Zoe

Also, "is overwhelmingly done by the parents". That depends. It's overwhelmingly done by _stepparents_ if I remember correctly. Children with one step-parent are 40 times more likely to be sexually abused than children of biological parents - if i remember correctly.

Research that backs it up

Margo Wilson and Daily's research on the topic, among others.

I have removed the following section from the article on Pedophilia, because it is more on topic here. Because there is already a section on "Children who molest", I did not want to copy the text right in:

"== Underage sex ==

Since the age of consent is often higher than the upper age limit in the definition of clinical pedophilia, underage sex, i.e. sexual activity with underage adolescents, is not, in general, clinical pedophilia. While such activity may be illegal in a particular jurisdiction, it frequently exemplifies only borderline pedophilia, or far more commonly, no pedophilia at all, because the person's attraction is not specifically to persons that young. The terms hebephilia and ephebophilia are sometimes used to describe attraction to youths or adolescents, distinct from attraction to children.

Most cases of father-daughter incest are believed to involve fathers who are situational offenders, rather than clinical pedophiles. Some have argued that these cases are caused by the withdrawal of the mother (often due to mental illness) from the family -- this withdrawal is more than purely sexual.

Modern cultures in general strongly condemn underage sex and regard it as a very serious crime, based on the idea that children are not sufficiently mature to be able to consent to sex and that sex with children is therefore rape.

Pederasty is underage sex, especially anal sex, between male adults and male adolescents or children. The North American Man-Boy Love Association advocates legalization of pederasty."

Cite your sources is Wikipedia policy. I have a question where does the information in this article about "arete" being infused in semen and that is why noblemen had sex with boys. Can anybody please give me the source for this information and especially am curious about the CLASSICAL references.WHEELER 13:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am asking again for references pleaseWHEELER 16:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pederasty is more specific article for your question. However I don't know whether the information was taken from there. --Moon light shadow 19:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"It is estimated over 35% of people who view child porn sexually abuse children."

Well I estimate that 83.7% of all statistics are make believe. Especially when they are prefaced with 'It is estimated', without saying by whom, and not stating what the error level is.

Statistics

Removed from the article, because they are meaningless without context:

  • 250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States. - Source: U.S. Department of Justice
What definition of pedophilia do they use? --Moon light shadow 10:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Convicted child molesters who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each. Men who molested boys had an astonishing average of 150 victims. - Source: In a study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health Dr. Gene G. Abel, Emory University
  • The typical child sex offender molests an average of 60 to 117 children, most of who do not report the offense. - Source: The National Institute of Mental Health, 1988
What is the percentage of exhibitionists? I guess, that it is very high, because other offenders can be much easier found and arrested and have fewer victims. --Moon light shadow 10:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused. - Source: CT Center for Prevention of Child Abuse, 1992
This does not mean, that the sexual abuse (maybe just being sexually active at a young age), made them become teenage prostitutes. Other studies show that, sexually abused children often suffer from family disfunction, which statistically is a better explaination for their problems. How many of the teenage prostitutes were younger than 18 and therefore sexually abused? --Moon light shadow 10:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers. - Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse 1992
How many of the offenders where their peers? Did the disability make masturbation hard/impossible? --Moon light shadow 10:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Abuse or neglected children are 67 times more likely to be arrested between ages 9-12 then those who aren’t. - # Victimized children had IQ’s 13 points below the general average of 100, as well as severely depressed reading abilities. - Source: The National Institute for Justice, 1991 Cathy Spatz Widom
The statistic is not restricted to sexual abuse. --Moon light shadow 10:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do not revert changes without explaining why. I deleted the part about the law in Germany because I regard it questionable to discuss the law of any specific country out of more than 100 that have laws for child sexual abuse. I changed the part about scientific evidence of the harmfulness because pedophiles often argue that it was "proven" that "consensual" sex was not harmful and twist studies in that purpose. There are studies that say it is harmful, it would be one-sided to only represent those who regard them as non-scientific. Get-back-world-respect 23:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph was not about the details of the law, but about the statutory justification of the law. They are also important as moral arguments, and they are certainly not totally different for each jurisdiction. The interesting part is the prohibition of consensual sex, because anything else is caught by other laws, anyways.
I am not aware of study with non-clinical samples that has proven that consensual sex causes harm (It also has to exclude family disfunction.), nor could Rind prove the opposite (see German discussion page). --Moon light shadow 16:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is a large amount of studies that show negative effects of abuse. It is just that pedophiles do not accept them arguing that "consensual" sex is not harmful. The average person would not even have the idea that a "consensus" could be reached between a child that is easy to influence and an adult with a disorder that makes him abuse children. Given the large amount of twisted material on the internet with which pedophiles try to justify their abuses I cannot see why we should cover that issue excessively thereby allowing them to dictate what is important. Get-back-world-respect 18:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The studies that "show" negative effects of abuse use biased samples or do not take other possible causes into account. Simple consent only means whether the sexual act was against the will of the child or not (A study can ask the child (or retrospectively the grown-up)). It is reasonable to expect that rape causes more harm than a sexual contact in which the childs reaction is neutral or positive. Mixing them may make the effects of rape look less severe than they actually are. There are many consensual sexual contacts between children and non-pedophiles with a small difference of age, which are considered CSA by many jurisdictions. --Moon light shadow 08:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The studies that "show" negative effects of abuse use biased samples or do not take other possible causes into account.? Are you one of the pedophiles who try to defend their crimes? I cannot think of other reasons why one would make such a statement. Get-back-world-respect 11:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just pointed out the problems that sexology identified. Even Finkelhor, who found moral reasons against CSA, once pointed out that there is no prove that all sexual activities that are considered CSA are actually harmful. Wrongfulness does not have to be congruent with harmfulness. Perhaps you misunderstood my statement: Of course it is possible that a correct study will show, that consensual sexual contacts are harmful. You seem to assume that pedophiles do not accept rational arguments and are always criminals. Neither is true. --Moon light shadow 19:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You made a euphemist remark about studies not showing clearly that sexual abuse is usually harmful for children. I know that there are pedophiles who try to twist studies in attempts to justify their abuses. To me it seems that some of them do this knowingly in order to deceive others, some may actually believe in it. If they only see the choice between getting demonized or getting encouraged to engage in crimes some choose the latter. Others see that they have a severe problem potentially harmful to others and search help. That is why I think we should cover better where such help can be found. Get-back-world-respect 20:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not feel well about the external links in articles like this one, pederasty, ephebophilia, "boylover", List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles and others. I think we should add some links that cover the topics from a scientific psychological point of view and some that inform about therapy for child molesters, and help for abused children and their parents. Up to now it seems to me that there is an overload of links to sites that propagate or downplay sexual abuse of children. Should we have those at all? I know that many pedophiles are highly active on the internet. We should try to help them with information about how to deal with their problems rather than encourage them to join others who tell them that what they feel is nothing wrong and only demonized by a mislead society. Get-back-world-respect 00:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all we should try to write an encyclopedia. It's goal is to inform the readers on selected topics, not to help the subjects of the encyclopedia. We don't need links to "guide on starting your own small business" in articles about poor African countries. Paranoid 22:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Informing the readers about child abuse should include informing them where victims can find help and where pedophiles can find treatment. Calling that "spam" as you did in your reverts while keeping links to sites propagating child abuse is unacceptable. Get-back-world-respect 00:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is spam, because you added it to 6 (sorry, not 10+ as I wrote) pages. They are relevant for this one, though, but preferably if sufficient explanation is given in the article. And I object to placing them at the top - they are clearly not the most helpful/useful. I will comment (edit) later with more details (in other articles too), don't have time now. Paranoid 00:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh yes, for sure we should rate sites openly propagating sex with children higher. [1] Get-back-world-respect 01:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My impression is that this article should be stressing the short and longer term mental health consequences of child sexual abuse rather more strongly. There is very considerable evidence now linking child abuse and child sexual abuse specifically to a range of major mental health illnesses such as psychosis, self-harm, suicide, eating disorders. There is also gendered dimension to this. These important links are even recognised by the DoH who published national service frameworks for adults (2000) and childern (2004)for England. I am not sure if this should be a separate article with links to this one or part of the body of this one. I guess the later would make a little more sense to me, but I am loathe to add significant chunks to this without some discussion about it. Jinko 10:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IP search indicates user:153.90.171.189 that defaced this page twice is from Montana State University. I am concerned by a whole lot of users advocating "childlove", solely interested in pedophilia related articles (user:Zanthalon, user:Moon_light_shadow), even newly created accounts, one of them (user:Maline) making the very first edit at the very unusual place of a request for comment on user conduct, and another lying about its identity (user:Marlais), using an apparently hacked IP address. Sorry, this is not against anyone personally, just trying to warn that there is something unusual and dangerous happening. Get-back-world-respect 08:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This should not be a problem as long as everyone sticks to the rules, we will create a good NPOV-conform article. (Did I mention yet, that I consider the article childlover a bad idea?) --Moonlight shadow 20:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As I indicated I have reasons to suspect that not everyone sticks to the rules, neither here nor in the German version of pedophelia related articles. Get-back-world-respect 00:45, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Translation

I have started to translate the German article. It is quite long and there has been a long-lasting controversial discussion about it, in which no significant problems could be pointed out. So its content is rather stable (during the few months that I am on Wikipedia) and should be reasonable despite the NPOV-warning (that was put in without saying, what exactly must be fixed or added).

A section introduction is not really necessary for such a short article yet. I will skip it for now, because it partially is an abstract of text that follows. summary: "fixed partisan edit including judgments and speculation". Actually the moderator (de:User:Ulrich Fuchs) of the German article added it, and it was not controversial. (However I agree that it contains some judgments and speculations).

I will wait some time, because Get-back-world-respects recent contributions to the German article might result in changes. After all the point of translating the article is to avoid duplicate discussions. --Moonlight shadow 20:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WARNING

The german articles related to pedophelia are subject to very hot debate. They are widely seen as the biggest neutrality problem the German wikipedia has. Moonlight shadow and his German version de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten play a very actice role in that game, in both versions nearly solely editing pedophelia related articles in an extremely partisan way and arguing aggressively. In some German discussions the same phenomenon occurred as here, newly created users focussing on pedophelia related articles and choosing very unusual places for their first edits, like a complaint about an administrator, cf. de:Diskussion:Pädokriminalität and de:Benutzer:Stardust. Some of the articles have an absurd overflow of links and citations pedophiles commonly use to make their case for the "fight for childrens' right" - to be abused. Get-back-world-respect 22:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, I consider you, GBWR, a much greater danger to Wikipedia and the NPOV principle in regards to pedophilia-related articles. Paranoid 23:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That coming from a user who completely ignores the rule of wikipedia:No personal attacks, calling others' statements bullshit with the explanation I am not fucking ignorant of that fucking rule. I just don't give a shit, you retard. Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Statistics

My joke about statistics actually had a point. And the point is that most of the stats currently included are bullshit and extremely biased (to scare the reader). "250,000-500,000 pedophiles" - clearly bullshit. Average number of abused kids - clearly bullshit (or taken out of context and not representative). "95% of teenage prostitutes sexually abused" - duh! In other news, water is wet. "Children with disabilities" - BS test passed. "Abused or neglected children are 67 times more likely to be arrested" - correlation does not equal causation. "Victimized children had IQ of 87" - interesting stat.

There are other key figures missing from the section. Among them should be the number of kids having consensual sex with other kids and adults (a percentage of 18 year olds that had prior sexual experience), percentage of abuse done by relatives (stepfathers) and friends, and other important data. Paranoid 22:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure you can point us towards the evidence that shows so convincingly that the stats given are bullshit?pir 23:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to rely on me here. It should be rather easy to find the evidence yourself, I am just pointing out which figures are likely to be exaggerated or made-up. Paranoid 08:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The studies might be accurate. However it is unsound to only cite the number you like from a study without discussing its methods and definitions. We do not need a list but text that is on the right place and not throw everthing into a section statistics. When it comes to the effects of child sexual abuse, Rind et. al. pointed out a number of problems of former studies:
  • Sample bais: Many studies use clinical samples where negative symptoms are not a suprise.
  • When you find a statistical correlation, this does not imply cause. Child sexual abuse and negative effects are correlated. However they both seem to be caused by family disfunction.
  • Moderators that are not taken into account by the legal system like reaction of the child, simple consent, etc. must be used in order to get meaningful results. They argue that the legal and moral idea child sexual abuse may effect science that should rather use an empirical classification of sexual relationships. --Moonlight shadow 12:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In other words, when a study shows a case where "consensual" "non-violent" abuse did not kill a child it means pedophilia is proven to be great. When something different is shown it is sample bias, only coincidental correlation, nonsense, conspiracy... Get-back-world-respect 00:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not exactly. What MLS means is that when doing good science we should not group rape of a 2 year olds with consensual sex between two 16 year olds. Because if we do, our conclusions will not make any sense. Paranoid 06:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Warning Signs

The following is a list of signs that a person may be a potential sexual predator of children. Obviously, a person who exhibits these qualities is not necessarily a sexual abuser of children. However, guardians of children who observe these qualities in a person their child comes into contact with would be well advised to evaluate the risk of their child having contact with that person based on how many of the warning signs they exhibit, and how severe each of them are. For instance, an "overly affectionate" father is completely harmless to a child; However, an overly affectionate father who buys child-pornography magazines and asks their partner to dress like a child when having sex would be a much more risky person for one's child to deal with.

  1. Someone who engages in the collection, trading, and/or distribution of child pornography, especially a large volume of the material. It is estimated over 35% of people who view child porn sexually abuse children.
  2. Someone who talks constantly about sexual activities of children.
  3. A person who spends his or her spare time doing things with children and not adult friends.
  4. This person seems to always have a special child friend. And this friend might change from time to time.
  5. Someone who will ridicule a child by calling them names with a sexual tone. Names like slut, whore, stud etc.
  6. They will ask their adult sexual partner to act or dress like a child during sex.
  7. They will tell children to keep secrets and not tell anyone of certain activities.
  8. Someone who gives money to children or buys them expensive gifts for no known reason.
  9. A person who is overly affectionate with children. This might include kissing, tickling, hugging, wrestling or touching a child even when the child tells them to stop.
  10. Someone who walks in on children in the bathroom.
  11. A person who becomes defensive when asked about a child's health or they give conflicting stories about injuries.
  12. Habitual sexual offenders of children often gravitate toward positions of trust, in which they are in constant contact with the their victims, children. It is not unusual that habitual offenders are athletic coaches, teachers, or clergy.


I moved the Warning Signs section here until someone lets us know where it came from and why it is encyclopedic. -Seth Mahoney 05:08, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where it came from, but it seems completely deserving of an entry here. As well, it seems valid. It explicitly states at the top: "Obviously, a person who exhibits these qualities is not necessarily a sexual abuser of children." I also plan to change the line saying "However, guardians of children who observe these qualities in a person their child comes into contact with would be well advised to reduce that contact, or at least be present during their child's contact with such a person." to "However, guardians of children who observe these qualities in a person their child comes into contact with would be well advised to evaluate the risk of their child having contact with that person based on how many of the warning signs they exhibit, and how severe each of them are. For instance, an "overly affectionate" father is completely harmless to a child; However, an overly affectionate father who buys child-pornography magazines and asks their partner to dress like a child when having sex would be a much more risky person for one's child to deal with." (or something along those lines) -Frazzydee 05:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"It seems completely deserving of an entry here" doesn't mean the same thing as "it is factual" or "it is from a trusted source". It also isn't the same as "it is encyclopedic". I saved your edits above, and don't necessarily think the section should be permanantly removed. However I do think it best, especially if the article is going to be giving advice (an odd thing for an encyclopedia article to do, no?) that we make sure that advice comes from a good source. -Seth Mahoney 05:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Seth, and the list above is a very mixed bag. There are some things so obvious that they do not need to be mentioned (someone who trades kiddie porn is not a good person to babysit your little daughter? who'd have thought!) and some so vague as to be dangerously close to hysteria ("your teacher, coach, priest could be a child abuser!").--Eloquence*
True. I'll try to track down who added the info in (let's hope it wasn't an anon user!), and leave them a message regarding the source. However, I do disagree with you in removing the whole chunk. Some of the information seems to be common sense. Regardless, I don't want this to turn into an edit war. If you agree, feel free to re-insert the "common-sense" information until I find the source. However, the point you brought up about an encyclopedia giving advice was valid. If the section is put back in, it should be rephrased.
PS: I know some of the stuff is repeating eloquence's comments, but I wrote this before Eloquence made the edit. I'm putting the paragraph in as it would have been had Eloquence not edited the page (did that make any sense?). -Frazzydee 05:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is one other thing that just occured to me: an encyclopedia deals in facts, not in speculation about what a given person may or may not be. I doubt you would find a list like this in any other encyclopedia (not necessarily a reason to remove it - Wikipedia has lots of good stuff not in other encyclopedias), and it would be inappropriate to have a list like "warning signs your neighbor may be a serial killer" or "how to tell if your best friend is gay". It may be better to find a site that has a list like this (you could probably find something like it on the APA web site, a good source) and provide a link at the bottom of the page. I also am not comfortable replacing "factual" with "common sense". Thank you, by the way, for avoiding an edit war. I generally think it best to move stuff like this to talk pages until resolved because it promotes action, and it moves possibly false information out of the article. -Seth Mahoney 05:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oh gosh...it was an anonymous user who added the section. I've left a note on their talk page, but in all likelyhood they won't respond (having only made 1 edit). If I don't get a response within 1-2 weeks, we can consider this case resolved, and link to an external site. Actually, in the mean time, it wouldn't hurt to link to an external site now. Good suggestion, Seth! -Frazzydee 05:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good research there. I probably should have looked to see who added it myself, but I so hate poring over pages and pages of article history hoping that the editor properly titled their edits. Anyhow, I'll look around for a link. -Seth Mahoney 05:46, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
There's actually a perfectly adequate list of warning signs that your child may have been abused already in the external links. I think its the second to the last one. -Seth Mahoney 05:55, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
The idea of warning signs is fundamentally flawed unless base rates have been established [2]. IMHO such lists do not prevent anything and only create the social taboos that their authors consider appropriate: "Do not take a bath with your little daughter!", "Keep your children from acting and talking in any sexual way!", etc. -- Moonlight shadow 08:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think you're generally right, Moonlight. It amounts to little more than "don't act like that or I'll be justified thinking you're a molester!" -Seth Mahoney 18:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Statistics

This looks too much like a trivia section. The relevant, factually correct and non-disputed numbers should be incorporated into the article. The irrelevant, biased and false should be excluded.

I would agree with that... however, you can't do that in wiki... i mean as an example look at the statistics (not posted by me) below. The first one i would only accept because i see what the source is, and i know that US DoD doesn't know the difference between a fish and a bird, much less between peadophile and child sex offender. What they do today is this. The arrest a person, railroad one into prison. And then when you get released and have to go to the "therapy" you are forced to admit that you are "pedophile" if you don't you are violated and have to go to prison again. So that's how they get their numbers. Of course, then there are pedophiles who never went through DoD, and therefore there's nothing DoD can say about them. Beta m (talk)

Statistics

  1. 250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States. - Source: U.S. Department of Justice
  2. Convicted child molesters who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each. Men who molested boys had an astonishing average of 150 victims. - Source: In a study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health Dr. Gene G. Abel, Emory University
  3. The typical child sex offender molests an average of 60 to 117 children, most of who do not report the offense. - Source: The National Institute of Mental Health, 1988
  4. Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused. - 'Source: CT Center for Prevention of Child Abuse, 1992
  5. It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers. - Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse 1992
  6. Abused or neglected children are 67 times more likely to be arrested between ages 9-12 then those who aren’t. - Source: The National Institute for Justice, 1991 Cathy Spatz Widom
  7. Victimized children had IQ’s 13 points below the general average of 100, as well as severely depressed reading abilities. - Source: The National Institute for Justice, 1991 Cathy Spatz Widom


tendentious edits in favour of abusers by Paranoid

All your edits are tendentious in favour of pedophiles. "Child sexual abuse denotes sexual activities with children that are perpetrated against an individual without consent" is plainly wrong, "consent" is not possible.

Consent is possible. For example, a 15 year old can give informed consent in many countries. In other counties a 13 year old can give consent to a 17 year old. In yet other countries the law recognises that even a small child can give consent, but simply ignores this. Even American law recognises that children can give "simple consent" even though they can't give informed consent. You were mistaken when you said it's impossible.

With "The research has suffered from lack of common methodology, unclear definitions, use of questionable techniques for retrospective studies, such as memory recovery (see false memories), bias, unjustified presumptions and other factors." you focus on critique of research that is usually dangerous for pedophiles,

I focus on critique because the research was criticised to some extent by many (may be even most) researchers. The problems (listed above) are noted by any survey of existing literature that I read.

"Child sexual abuse is regarded as particularly reprehensible in many modern societies, however, the ambiguity of the definition and the intensity of fear and reprehension prompted some critics to argue that in some respects this is a result of mass hysteria and not rational view towards specific problems." is panic of abusers. Get-back-world-respect 13:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't say that the reaction towards presumably ritual child abuses in day care was normal, would you? Even such respectful authors as Finkelhor spread the rumours because they didn't treat the findings with proper scientific scepticism and because they all too often made ridiculous assumptions on which they based their conclusions. I am not denying that certain activities that are usually understood under CSA happen and are harmful, but being scared of "Child sexual abuse" per se is silly, because it's such a vague concept. Paranoid 13:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Being scared of therapy and characterizing prevention as moral panic is silly. Get-back-world-respect 14:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Convoluted terminology

I'm being told that I should post some comments and issues regarding changes to the structure here.

I'm discovering a slew of convoluted terminology surrounding the entire section of sex abuse, child sex abuse, child sexuality, pedophilia, sex offenders, criminal/law terms vs. psychological and sociological terms, categories, etc.

The most blaring example is that Child grooming is under both the categories: Category:Child sex offender and Category:Friendship. That to me is just hilarious. It shows that we're having a hell of a time trying to differentiate terminology. Child Grooming is not a criminal offence nor does it deal with law or abuse, thus should not be under "child sex offender". Grooming can be good OR bad. It depends on the intent of the individual. One can groom their child to become a Protestant or a Christian or a Satanist, for example. The article, as I originally found it, assumed that the only type of grooming was that of a child molester seeking sex with children. It was quite biased, and so was the category(s) it was in, IMO, so I changed it.

(Then, I found out the guy who told me to post here reverted it back.)

Then, I found the same thing is happening with Sex offender, child sex abuse, Category:Sex crimes, Category:Child sex offenders. There's more than one type of sex offender than someone who breaks the law with a kid. Also, child sex offenders were moved to the child abuse page, when they should be under their own section because the term deals with the person, not the offense. Homosexuality used to be considered a criminal sex offense for instance, but that's not the case these days. Pedophilia is also under the same scrutiny, currently. It's important that in order to remain NPOV we properly categorize these terms. Do we really need a whole category specifically for Child Sex Offenders, listing them out one by one? And why is Category:Child sexual abuse Listed amongst the other two categories when the other two talk about legal terms, not psychological.

Why is Category:Childlove listed as a subcategory of Category:Child sexual abuse? The whole point of the childlove movement is that their claim is it's not abuse. It should be listed under Category:Pedophilia which in turn should be NOT under Category:Paraphilia but rather Category:Human Sexuality, parallel to paraphilia, and THOSE should be under Category:Biology, Category:Psychology.

"sex offender" ties psychology with criminal acts; "criminal" meaning "illegal", but not necessarily immoral. Thus, I move that all terms dealing with tying an offense in with psychology be placed under Category:Criminology or a subcategory under that called Category:Criminal Psychology.

I also move that a special project section be put underway for this subject. This really needs to be sorted out in a way where the POV can finally be put to an end. It's really become a huge mess of pages and categories not really pointing to any root basis.

I could go on and on and on, but I'll stop here for sanity's sake. --Rookiee 16:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Someone who wants to finally start a critical discussion on this talk page. I agree with the categorization concerns you have. The more that people can talk on these discussion pages, the more that we can build some consensus for changing the scope and organization of these articles.
I'm tired of hearing the rote explanations of these issues by those who wish to hide behind technical guild language. The world is much deeper than that. They are just in their own little world. They think that the world must revolve around their ideas - and they believe that somehow that's NPOV. -- Rainbird 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for explicating some of these issues. Regarding Category:Pedophilia and Category:Child sexual abuse. Per the discussion in Category:Pedophilia, that category only covers the sexual attraction to children. Articles which deal with acting on that attraction go to Category:Child sexual abuse. While advocates of Childlove do not think that having sex with children is abusive, the rest of the world thinks differently and we are obliged to give the dominant POV the primary position. I reverted your changes because they were major and unexplained. -Willmcw 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No prob. Actually, slight correction(s) to be made to your statement...
  • "While advocates of Childlove do not think that having sex with children is abusive"
This is only partially true. A) There are many in the Childlove community who do not advocate that sex with children is a good thing. This is a huge debate going on amongst CLs. You got one side saying that other forms of romantic love are ok, but sex isn't. B) Those CLs that do think sex with kids is ok, most in the CL communities do agree that there can definately be abusive forms of sex, as it pertains to age, social maturity, physical maturity, culture, etc.. I personally do not advocate an active sexual relationship with kids with how society stands today. In the face of a society that can't handle even homosexuality, yes, a sexual relationship can be heartbreaking, and traumatizing, other than very rare cases where things turn out alright. Those cases are very, very rare. Even if the relationship is purely loving and free, if the two are found out, the consequences could bring horrible damage to the two of them. This is touched on in the boylove code of ethics on Paiderastria.
However, what I do NOT agree with is the villanization of tens of thousands of people who simply have an attraction that does not agree with society. Witchhunting is witchunting. The "child grooming" issue, for example. That is an example of a term that has been twisted and convoluted to such an extent that not even you weren't aware of its original connotation (which had been around for a good couple hundred years other than the current hysteria. The term, as it is used widely today in the US and UK is not a long-standing definition, but yet it's taken such precedence in the mainstream, it's completely overwritten the true meaning. Child grooming = molding. Incidentally, "molding children" is is something I don't agree in, morally speaking. I believe children should be allowed to be whatever they want to be, live how they want to live, and not have to live up to their parents' expectations in life. (And this coming from an evil pedophile.. ooooh..)
  • "we are obliged to give the dominant POV the primary position"
Primary to who? I contest this. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."[3]
  • "I reverted your changes because they were major and unexplained."
I was creating new articles for ones that were previously clumped together. How is that major? Is there a rule for this or is the decision arbitrary by whoever decides they don't like the changes?
The changes I made to child grooming were hardly major. I kept all references to the arguments made about child grooming in the sexual sense of the word, and I listed the opinions contesting the arguments. Why was this removed? The article, before I touched it, was very one-sided and incomplete in its definition. --Rookiee 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This passage makes no sense: "Also, in cases of multi-generational relationships where both parties are legal adults, such relationships are still often widely considered immoral and taboo, even though legal. Such relationships often result in humorous anecdotes or parodies, and in some more severe cases, social abolishment." If both parties are legal adults, there is no child sexual abuse going on, obviously, so this either needs to be deleted or clarified. KathL 05:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this red link in a few of the articles I've perused today and was hoping I might coax somebody with more knowledge of the subject to write a small article on it. I think it would be useful. Thought this might be the best place to ask. --DanielCD 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Refs

Some of the author names in the refs section are a little confusing, like "Juliette D. G. Goldman". Is this one name or did something get deleted somewhere? The last names should go first and those used to alphabetize. I believe they should be in alphabetical order. Just some housekeeping if anyone is interested... --DanielCD 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Also, somewhat down in the article: "adult forces or coerces sex on a prepubescent minor" is given as a simple definition. However, there are many times where the child actually freely engages the activity, being "led" into it gently rather than being coerced. Other times they can be passive, not taking part, but not resisting either (they may be confused, not sure what's going on or what to do as it's outside the realm of their experience). The child is unaware of the gravity or consequences of what's happening and may treat it like any new experience, though, unknown to the child, the psychological consequences of the abuse will surface later.

This is not addressing the question of whether such abuse is always harmful. Even if there are cases where it ends up not causing any harm, the question is really not relevant to the question of the abusive nature of the adult's actions, as the abuser can never know the effects beforehand, and hence the idea that "it doesnt always cause harm" can't excuse any action of this type. Even if the child is not coerced in any way and seems unaffected, it will take time to see the real effects.

The lack of coercion or force does not make it any less abuse and the def should likely be amended in this regard. I didn't make any change to it though as I want to see what others think. I didn't read the whole article word for word and may have missed something. --DanielCD 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actual cause of harm

I refuse to unquestioningly believe that sexual stimulation in and of itself necessarily harms the psyche of minors and tend to think that factors which tend to or necessarily accompany molestation, including an inevitable power imbalance which would be particularly present for prepubescents, are more to blame for actual damage to the child's psychological condition. I also think that the kind of parental negligence and poor parent-child communication which would allow molestation to pass unnoticed for a number of years probably has as much to do with psychological maladjustment as the actions of the offender. Other than the clear and present power imbalance, I wouldn't think that the psychological effect of sexuality on minors would differ much from the effect of the parallel acts on adults ranging from unwanted advances, aggressive seduction, rape, exploitation of impaired or uninformed judgement, and secrecy, which I may need to remind some of you are, together, both far and away more likely than informed and open consent except under particularly strange circumstances and quite detrimental enough to satisfy one's desire to find legitimate fault in the behavior. Personally, I think the fact that people react emotionally and vengefully to the very idea of child-adult sex is deplorable, and I think that more time should be spent rationally examining the links between molestation and its consequences and working out how to improve the lot of the kids. Too much time is spent hating the offender, and too little is invested in figuring out what to do with the kids.

On that note, the inability of some people to tell the difference between a mere deviant who just got caught porking a sixth-grader and a jerk who regularly beats and rapes his eleven year old step-daughter during drunken rages is also disturbing. One needs a psychiatrist, and the other needs a bullet; work out for yourself which is which, and attempt not to confound the two in the future. Disturbing as you might find the deviant, it's as unjust and malproductive to say that the deviant is as guilty as the abuser as it would be to say that the abuser is as innocent as the deviant, and there are obvious reasons that they should be treated differently from one another. If nothing else, we'd be freer to steamroll the real scum.

Returning to my original point, more fully understanding the actual reasons for the harmful consequences of molestation would make us more able to provide adequate treatment for the kids themselves. I honestly think that, if the subject is examined closely enough, we'll discover that having one's first orgasm at eight isn't going to turn one suicidal six years later all by itself.

Anonymous Bastard #1, aka 4.88.2.115 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I was sexually abused myself, and I can personally say that you are right and wrong. Studies have shown sexual stimulation in childhood has led to brain damage of several functions of the brain, yet, I do think there is way to much stigma surrounding kids and sexual experimentation as well. Science has proven you very wrong, nonetheless. I think the stigma surrounding girls who have the physical development, say around 15 or so, can be a little stupid. I am also an advocate that younger sexual education would help reduce sexual abuse significantly. --202.164.193.221 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite these studies? It would be interesting to count the number of times I brain-damaged myself before I reached the age of consent....St. Jimmy 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There have also been arguements that there is NOT a clear and viewable power imbalance between adults and children. In the case of parents and children, that might be the case, however most parents have trouble getting their children to clean their rooms, so it doesn't follow that they would be able to force them into sex. Also, having an orgasm or sexual experience at an early age does NOT lead to suicide or mental illness, you are correct on that. The usual things that lead to suicide or mental illness are problems with the brains of the people with the mental illness, so the mental illness would manifest itself whether the person was sexually abused or not. Also, some people do not agree with the designation of pedophiles as 'deviants'. We have been around since the beginning of time, and probably when we were still rat-like mammals. That makes us not deviants, but a known offshoot of regular, socially condoned sexuality. Christopher1 3:20 February 3, 2006

POV title

The title is POV (biased). The term and concept of "Child sexual abuse" should be dealt with in an article lacking a POV title. Or else only the use of the term should be in an article with the title "Child sexual abuse". Discussing behavior that in some cultures is not "abuse" should not be in an article with "abuse" in its title. Imagine if Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy were entitled Freedom of expression abuse ? WAS 4.250 18:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd. People have different ideas about what constitutes abuse, and no definition could be complete without some such discussion. I completely fail to see how the provided examples apply. It would be nice if everything was convenient and tidy, but the world isn't so clean cut. --DanielCD 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
In a nutshell, what's being asked for here is an a priori definition of CSA. Mental constructs aren't going to exist prior to human experience. And to say we can't discuss the varieties of human experience regarding the issue... Whose definition are we going to use? --DanielCD 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, insofar as this article is about the issue of sexual contact between adults and minors in general as opposed to just the phenomenon of CSA as it is currently treated by Western psychology. The DSM-IV's broad definition of CSA as all sexual contact between individuals under 18 and legal adults certainly deserves mention as it has been widely used in the reasearch and treatment of CSA, but probably isn't the best title, in part because its claims are disputed by some western psychologists, but more importantly because it ignores the importance of cultural context. General opinion about the age at which an individual is ready to engage in sexual activity varies widely between cultures, and is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether an act that DSM-IV would define as CSA is actually abusive. In Japan, for example, adult men are expected to be attracted to pubescent girls, and the taboo against ephebophilia there is very weak by comparison to that in the US. I vaguely recall a poll of japanese girls aged 12-14 that asked if they found anything wrong with girls of their age group prostituting themselves to older men (a phenomenon known as "compromised dating") and got a 20% "no" result. Given this cultural difference a psychologist would be wrong to use the DSM-IV's definition of CSA in treating a Japanese adolescent. What's especially bothersome is the article's own lack of regard for cultural context, and implicit acceptance of the DSM's definition: "On the other hand, on the Isle of Alor, it was discovered that parents were masturbating their children and referring to it as a natural way of relieving their children's tensions. The Alorese exhibit a number of psychological symptoms many connect to the sexual abuse." (No citation.) A title change won't fix this; the article needs a rewrite. However, as this subject has a capacity to ruffle feathers exceeded only by the likes of Muhammad and Holocaust Denial, I intend to tread softly. Comments would be appreciated. 68.46.108.208 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

-Sorry, wasn't logged in. That was me. Sammy1339 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over effects

I added sorely missing references relating to the issue of whether CSA is by nature harmful. The original gave the impression that no such issue existed. I tried to make the edit as NPOV as possible, but any discussion of the subject is bound to offend somebody. Also, the transition to the next paragraph is choppy. Really the edit I made belongs in its own "controversy" section, like many other articles have, but I knew that doing that would be guaranteed to piss many people off, so I just replaced the ridiculously short, biased, and inaccurate mention of controversy with a larger paragraph.

Sources required for help

I believe that sources (web based and book based) should be quoted for recovery methods from childhood sexual abuse. eg forums, workbooks, standard texts. Have not added at the moment. suggestions www.RAINN.org, Courage to Heal Book, unsure whether this is standard for articles in Wikipedia.

Sources

We need to add sources for content in this article ASAP. This subject is too contraversial to allow unsourced content. I suggest we set a date, let's say 2 weeks from now, to have sources or the content is removed to the talk page. Other opinions welcome : ) FloNight talk 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --DanielCD 15:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What you said. Herostratus 04:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ima tag it, K? Herostratus
Good, you added the tag. I meant to ask you about it. FloNight talk 05:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph refactoring

I'm refactoring the second paragraph, and I can't fit it all in an edit summary, so. Here's the original paragraph:

It has a special status among forms of abuse, because it includes not only

Problems with this paragraph:

  • General formatting.
  • The [6] reference is pretty much a non-sequiter, it describes doctor-patient relationships and and does not well define the concepts of "simple consent" and "informed consent". Out it goes.
  • The internal link Definition based on Informed Consent is broken, as Sexual abuse no longer has (if it did) a section called "Definition based on Informed Consent". (This is one reason why linking to article sections is to be avoided if possible). Out it goes.
  • Ditto, the link to sexual abuse goes to a non-existant section. Delinkified.
  • The link for "simple consent" goes to a page at the IPCE (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation) site. It does give a fairly good definition of simple vs. informed consent, but it's also a long convoluted article for a definition, and its also (I would gather) a POV site, which is fine for a citation but problematical for a definition. What's needed here is a good internal Wiki definition, which there is not, although the articles Informed consent, Consent, and Consent (criminal) discuss this somewhat. So, since there's no handy definition for simple consent, and the passage "even if a child gives simple consent" is a level of detail that doesn't really need to be in the opening section, out it goes.
  • As to "It has a special status...". It doesn't really have a special status, it's a form of status offense, an age-related offense (underage drinking drinking, driving, etc.), of which there are many. Status offense have their corollary in what I guess would be called "child protection laws" -- it's a status offense for a minor to drink alcohol; it's a child protection law (or whatever) that you can't give alcohol to a minor. That's law-talk; what the editor is trying to say (I think) is that it's special among forms of sexual abuse. But there aren't that many forms of sexual abuse anyway. So I reworded it somewhat.

Thus giving us:

It is different from other forms of sexual abuse, because it includes not only what would be considered sexual abuse between adults, but also forms of sexual activity between children and adults that would not be considered abusive if performed by two consenting adults.

which can be condensed with no loss to:

It is different from other forms of sexual abuse in that it includes forms of sexual activity between children and adults that would not be considered abusive if performed by two consenting adults. Herostratus 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, you have a very very keen mind. I'm going to try to help out and may have some space to cite my additions etc. tomorrow. Great work, really. --DanielCD 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent wording. FloNight talk 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maturity

This is commonly characterized among psychologists as a "lack of maturity".

This way of putting it is, I think, rather too simplistic. The lack of "maturity" is generally confined to certain aspects of the personality, not to the entire person. I'll try to suggest something soon. Comments very welcome. --DanielCD 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection to homosexuality

Pederasty in the Islamic lands - this article has some info on this, but I haven't looked at it in relation to the statement I've so far failed to cite. --DanielCD 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other societies, however, in which adult/adult homosexuality is considered criminally and morally offensive behavior, but child/adult heterosexual relations are viewed as acceptable. In Arab societies, due to the taboos regarding man-woman contacts, aspects of homosexuality between men and boys has historically had some cultural acceptance.

I removed this from the article for now. I think this small section needs some rethinking. Any comments/opinions welcome. --DanielCD 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocence of children

This section is a little odd as well. There is a large discussion out there about the idea of "innocence" and how it has changed over the centuries. Is this idea a modern invention, a product of the Victorian age? It may be dealing more with affect than a real construct (it may be more of a sentimentality than a reality). Or is it? --DanielCD 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there physical evidence?

How does someone, such as a doctor, tell that a child's been sexually abused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacegirl92 (talk • contribs)

Sometimes: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic369.htm 24.224.153.40 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Djac75 April 11 edits

  • First edit was to remove link to When Are We Crossing A Child's Sexual Boundaries? with edit summary "Wierd, radical, controversial agenda...".
    • They look to be a pretty normal, if conservative (but not ultra-conservative or religious), group. I didn't see anything weird or radical on the site. They may be controversial, but what isn't nowadays. Reverted.
  • Second edit was some language changes, including putting scare quotes on the word "victim".
    • Sorry, we don't need scare quotes, OK? Reverted.
  • Third edit was OK I guess, IIRC.
    • But whether the multiple-edits deal was a ploy to make reversion more difficult or not, we don't have the time to pick through everything of a mostly-revertable edit session, so that got reverted too. Herostratus 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
i hope i'm not the only one who thinks "i was too lazy to read the edit" is a really bad reason to revert something. --dan 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Djac75 that http://www.wethechildren.com/boundriesenglish.htm is a very weird, radical, controversial agenda and that linking to it probably isn't a good thing. For example, saying "If the parent must wash the child’s hair, the child should wear underwear in the tub" is just neurotic, and it's the height of hypocrisy for them to say on the very same page "Parents should never insinuate that sex or the human body is bad, dirty or nasty" when that's what they've been doing the whole time.
Well put. These people don't understand a contradiction when it's staring them in the face. St. Jimmy 16:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(Herostratus: I think you accidentally deleted some of your text ... Look at your edit here: [7]) Zebruh 06:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC) That's weird, I didn't do that. Huh, that's some random material from the article. Maybe I had it in the paste buffer and dropped it in by mistake or something. Anyway, it didn't belong there. No matter. Herostratus 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the scare quotes, delete them, but that's no reason to revert the whole edit. Pais 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of that stuff is inane, but valid opinion. It shouldn't be removed. 24.224.153.40 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Underwear? In the tub? Wow. Had to go look that up.... OK, what it says is, Hey, between the ages of 4 and 5 is a good time to stop bathing your kid nude, besides which he should be able to wash himself anyway, except maybe his hair. I mean, OK, maybe that's on the conservative side (I dunno), but neurotic? So hmmmmm the kid is no longer between 4 and 5, which means s/he's five (or older)... should Daddy be having Molly strip to wash her hair? I dunno... you don't want to be doing that when she's, say, eight, right? She'd feel a little funny, don't you think? So what's a good age to stop doing that? 4-5 sounds reasonable to me. A bit prudish they may be, but weird, radical, neurotic? I'm not seeing that... Also, one of the main pages is about how spanking is way wrong ("NO HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMEAN, HUMILIATE OR SHAME ANOTHER HUMAN BEING"). So it's not like we're talking Focus on the Family here, or something.
As to the other stuff, fine, whatever, that's cool, put it back if you want to (minus the scare quotes). Herostratus 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that they are either liberal or conservative. I agree that "neurotic" is a good description though. St. Jimmy 04:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm, didn't see any neurosis. Herostratus
She'd feel funny because either society or her parents have taught her that nudity is shameful. Not cool. 24.224.153.40 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hightly debatable. Maybe it is a trade-off (Civilization and its discontents and all that), but it could be just from being self-conscious beings. Anyway, kids develop their sense of bodily integrity and self-as-separate-from-the-parent during these years. You don't want to interfere with that. I mean, if you're postulating a complete re-ordering of civilization and human consciousness, maybe, sure, but why not postulate antigravity or something useful like that if you're gonna postulate. Herostratus 05:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think their conclusions are laughable, and their credentials for offering them are non-existent (they are not psychiatrists or even pediatricians, but claim to have an MA (Probably in social work). Perhaps bathing in one's underwear is de rigueur where you live, but I think most people and all reputable mental health experts would find it rather creepy. This is not a serious link, IMO, but if the majority wants to keep it, I suppose it's not the end of the world. I just wonder why a much more professional and serious advocacy link, ETAY (Ethical Treatment for All Youth) was removed from the child abuse page. St. Jimmy 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, all of the criticism so far seems to focus on one small passage about the underwear. And they're not saying Bathe your child in her underwear, as you characterize it. I gather that they're saying bascially After your child is old enough to bathe herself, she still may need help washing her hair (I suppose because washing one's hair is the most difficult task of bathing, what with the soap getting in your eyes and all), maybe even up to age eight. You can wash someone's hair in a sink without removing any clothing, but I guess some people wash their child's hair in the shower, and I guess they're talking about that. And even if the child can just lean her head into the stream of water from the shower, you probably don't want her to do that with all her clothes on. Because they might well get wet, I would think. But its reasonable for her to keep her underpants on. You should be able to wash her hair without getting her underpants wet, or if they do get wet, she can change them, I guess. I mean it might be a little easier to have her remove her underpants to wash her hair, because then you don't have deal with the possibility of wet underpants. But on the other hand, they can just be hung to dry, so how much of a problem is that, really? And if the child is school-age, she's likely developing a sense of modesty. and so why compromise that when it's not necessary? She might not want to be naked in front of Daddy anymore, she might feel that that's babyish, and it might make her feel bad or funny, even though she might not understand why, or be able to form a cogent objection. This is my interpretation of what they're saying. I would be surprised if all mental heath experts would find this "creepy", and I can't think of a good reason why they would. ETAY I don't know about, but a quick check looks like they're more about sex between consenting teens, which is an interesting issue, but probably not that germane to this article. Herostratus 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you are trying to make a plausible case why these people have some good parenting ideas: maybe you are right, maybe you aren't, but either way the debate does not belong in a "child sexual abuse" context but in a "parenting advice" context.St. Jimmy 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I dunno. The whole question of removing the link has been around whether the original remover's edit summary of ""Wierd, radical, controversial agenda..." was accurate. The sppropriateness of the subject matter hasn't been brought up before. It's probably marginal. The section linked to is "When are we crossing a child's sexual boundaries". It does seem more like parenting tips than not. Hmmm. Herostratus 03:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I just think people making up rules about when other people can see their kids naked is a little freaky. I don't think people like that necessarily have any more clue than the rest of us about what is or is not sexual abuse.St. Jimmy 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm, well, you should come down to my old neigborhood if you want to see some clueless parents. Heck, how about "don't fill the baby's bottle with Coca-Cola". "Letting your kid run wild and smacking him at random intervals is not parenting." "Parking your kid in front of the TV all day is not parenting." You'd be surprised at what people need to be told. Herostratus 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources II

Per Talk:Child sexual abuse#sources above, it's time and past to clean out the unsourced material. I'll start by ((fact)) tagging all the material, then shortly remove it if its not sourced, moving it the section Sources III - Removed Unsourced Material, below. Of course it'll also be in the page history.

Several passages are alreay ((fact))-tagged so I'll start with them. Herostratus 11:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources III:Removed Unsourced Material

The number of female offenders is unknown but is usually reported to be between 10% and 20%, although in some studies it was found to be as high as 70% due to concealment, double standards and social taboos about reporting female-perpetrated sex offenses. [citation needed] -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Isle of Alor, it was discovered that parents were masturbating their children and referring to it as a natural way of relieving their children's tensions. The Alorese exhibit a number of psychological symptoms many connect to this activity. [citation needed] -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most offenders are situational offenders (pseudopedophiles and pseudo-ephebophiles) rather than pedophiles or ephebophiles.[citation needed] -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (Although this seems fairly likely true, maybe return after sourcing. The following sentences pretty much just expand on this, so removing just this sentence is maybe problematical.)

However, many of these critics fail to note the differences in societal sexual mores when arguing that other behavior is a useful guide for predicting response. [citation needed] -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (Not clear here if the tag was meant to apply to just this sentence or to all/part of the entire paragraph. To be sorted out.)

Some further argue that denying a minor the right to give informed consent ignores his or her right to sexual self-determination. [citation needed] -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In 2006 deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Brian J. Doyle, was charged with using a computer to seduce a child. -- Removed Herostratus 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (Not removed for lack of sourcing but because I don't think that, as a rule, we should be publishing the names of people who have been charged but not convicted, granted that in this case everybody knows about him, but still, as a precedent, no.)

So are you saying that we should remove all of the charges against Scooter Libby too? Criminal charges are public information, and are readily verifiable. Anyway, I disagree with your reasoning but I agree with your conclusion. I had been thinking Doyle should be remoevd because he is not charged with any form of child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair point, but persons accused of child sexual abuse are sometimes treated with greater circumspection, since they might be lynched or whatever before their guilt is determined. But as you say, moot. Herostratus 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for motivating me, but please don't remove anything else yet. I'll try to work on it. 24.224.153.40 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I only removed the ((fact))-tagged stuff because two other editors besides myself had agreed that article has various problems and that removing unsourced material was a good idea, given the fraught nature of the subject, and we announced this on the talk page (see above) and waited a couple weeks. Plus the material removed is saved above, could be restored if source found (although you'd have to check the page history to find where it went.) Right, OK, I won't remove any more material for at least a week. Herostratus 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

plethysmography slides

This is from the abstract of a study:

The data suggest that 15 (68%) of the heterosexual pedophiles preferred fondling and mutual masturbation with children, while 7 others (32%) were more aroused by scenes depicting forced penetration (both digital and genital), contrary to their initial self-reports.

I don't understand what kind of slides they would use to ascertain this. Do they show the offenders child porn? 24.224.153.40 04:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you tell us which study it'd help. -Will Beback 05:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"Aggression and erotic attraction toward children in incestuous and pedophilic men," Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1(3), 417-441. I also read while searching for references that they show offenders pictures of prepubescent girls posed erotically. Weird. 24.224.153.40 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: last paragraph of section "Effects of sexual abuse on minors"

This was removed with a comment saying basically "the sources are talking about physical abuse, not sexual abuse". I'm not seeing that at all. The first source certainly includes non-sexual abuse, but not solely or even primarily, e.g.:

  • "Slightly more than half reported having been abused physically or sexually, or both, as children. Compared with patients who reported no ill-treatment, average checklist scores were 38 percent greater in the patients with physical (but not sexual) abuse and 49 percent higher in the patients with sexual (but not other physical) mistreatment. Patients who acknowledged both physical and sexual abuse had average scores 113 percent higher than patients reporting none."
  • "...research team sought to ascertain whether childhood physical, sexual or psychological abuse was associated with brain-wave abnormalities... Our findings dovetailed with a 1978 EEG study of adults who were victims of incest."
  • "...compared MRI scans of 17 adult survivors of childhood physical or sexual abuse..."
  • "...found left hippocampal abnormalities in 21 adult women who had been sexually abused as children..."

This is going less than halfway down in the article, I think that's plenty of examples. The second source I'm not able to access at this time, I don't know if it's down or my puter is cranky or what. Herostratus 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

last sentence of "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings"

"Because of the lack of a universal definition, the research on CSA is open both to personal biases of the researchers and of their critics."

Sheesh, there's at least three serious problems with that sentence:

  • Is research on CSA "open to the personal biases of the researchers" significantly more that is the case of (say) research on the causes of poverty? Or research on the economic effects of tax cuts? Or research in any number of areas that are not hard science? If it isn't, it doesn't need to be said. If it is, please cite.
  • Even if it can be verified that CSA research especially attracts or rewards third-rate researchers and slapdash research methods, is the cause the lack of a universal definition? Or is it something else -- lack of funding, relatively low salaries, lack of prestige, or whatever?
  • And how, exactly, is the lack of "universal definition" a problem? In our articles on economics, we don't have "Some economists posit that a high savings rate is always desirable, but critics point out that 8th-century Baffin Islanders kept their savings in seal skins, and seal skins decay over time, so this cannot said to be universally true." "High mortage rates are generally believed to cause house prices to rise, but critics point out that European Lobsters (Homarus gammarus) do not have mortages, and indeed do not have homes, being simple sea-floor-dwelling arthopods of the family Nephropidae. So this doesn't apply to them and is thus not universally applicable." Obviously a researcher correlating (say) reported CSA levels with suicide rates for various current American states doesn't have to worry whether the definition of CSA she is using is valid for 3rd-Century Lusitania. Herostratus 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Last para. of "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings"

I'm not at all nuts about this entire section as written, but the last para. for starters seems quite unneccesary:

Last paragraph: "In some South Pacific island cultures, such as the Sambia of Papua New Guinea, one of the primary rituals of initiation for boys involves having them ingest semen, which they consider to be the literal essence of manhood. The boys obtain semen by fellating older boys who have already passed through the initiation. Upon initiation into higher stages, the roles are reversed, making the fellator the fellated. Ritual fellatio is somewhat common throughout southeastern Papua New Guinea but has been studied the most in the Sambia (Herdt 1982)." [8] [9] [10]

  • Err, what has this to do with the price of eggs? Its all very interesting I'm sure but how far off track do want to get here? Isn't this quite a bit too much detail for a topic that is at least mostly if not completely out of place in this article. Doesn't this belong in an article on Oceanic culture or Coming of age or something?
  • The three citations make a nice little row, but the last two at least look suspicious (one is glbtq.com, the other globalgayz.com). Are these scholarly, neutral sources? That's not required for entries in the External links section, but for actual sources it's recommended. I'm not saying they're not OK but it needs to be checked.

"...sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece and feudal Japan..."

  • It's usually not a good sign when, without looking at the edit history, you know who made a particular edit (hi User:Haiduc!). This particular point has probably not been inserted into the article St. Louis Browns. But without checking, I can't be sure ("In 1954, the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles. The relationship between this and that fact that sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men were sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece and feudal Japan has not been studied and thus remains neither proven nor disproven..."'). (Just raggin' you User:Haiduc! You know I love ya!) Herostratus 13:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed more unsourced content

Removed sentence Sexual relations between adults and minors in western society remain controversial. It is unsourced and false. Sexual relations between adults and minors is illegal. This is clearly spelled out in law. Today western society openly discusses these cases instead of sweeping them under the rug. FloNight talk 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But not everyone agrees with the current state of the law, e.g. the Matthew Koso case. That makes it controversial, and that should be reflected in some way. Can we figure out a better substitute for the deleted sentence? St. Jimmy 11:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

St. Jimmy, I think you are overstating the controversy. It is more about the type of punishment an adult should get for having sexual contact with a minor than if adult should have sexual contact with a minor. The debate is about the way that age of consent should be factored into the type of charges that are brought for sexual contact that is not "forced" but instead is "consensual." More now than before, people in western societies think adolescents should not have consensual sexual contact with adults. FloNight talk 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be careful not to confuse the United States with western societies in general. In countries with lower ages of consent like Canada, the U.K., and Germany, no one bats an eyelash at the idea of a 16-year-old adolescent having consensual sexual contact with an adult. In the current climate in the U.S., on the other hand, many people think adolescents should not have consensual sexual contact with anyone at all of any age, not even other adolescents (cf. Bush's amusing "abstinence-only" approach to sex education). I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans call for raising the age of consent in the U.S. to 35, and I wouldn't be surprised if opinion polls gave them 65% support if they did make such a call. Pais 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That is hardly universal. Many people sympathize with Matthew Koso and Debra Lafave and didn't feel they should've been charged at all. Bill Maher actually celebrated it on his tv show when charges were dropped against Lafave. We shouldn't be quick to assume public opinion is settled on an issue with so many complexities. And Pais is correct that the U.S. is somewhat out of step with other Western democracies. (e.g. when the conservative party took over in Spain in 1996, they raised the age of consent from 12 all the way to 13.) St. Jimmy 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

if both consenting parties are under 16...

would it be considered child sexual abuse if both consenting parties were under 16? how about if one was slightly older than then other, so that for a short period one was 16 while the other was not, for that period is sexual intercourse illegal? would gender be an issue in conviction, ie, the male party is more liable? there are many myths such as these amongst teenagers discovering their sexuality, can anyone shed any light apon them? 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The laws on these matters vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next. It is impossible to add material which would apply to everyone. -Will Beback 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking for the answers or suggesting they be added? JayW 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

'Citation needed' tags

The sheer amount of them after every modicum of statement is becoming laughable. Skinnyweed 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Entire article full of POV and unsourced or unverifiable material. Can see that some of you here have been doing a yeoman's job of work fixing it. Biggest remaining problems result from excessive confusion by some earlier author A)between legal facts/procedures and POV/advocacy, and B)between reputable medical/criminological studies and POV/non-scientific pseudo-studies. Decided to help by adding information on child sexual abuse from U.S. law that will serve as a base for article. Added a legal definition of child sexual abuse and an overview of types of penalties to the top of the article. Both clearly marked as relevant to U.S. treatment of child sexual abuse. Edited section on prohibited activities to clarify vagueness and standardize language vis à vis U.S. law. Moved some material from the preamble information above the index further down (info re: child sexual abuse different from rape of adult victim; in reported cases, males constitute majority of perps). Near bottom of article, titled section "Unsourced Material". More shortly.Volpe 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not US-o-pedia. You're making the article centric and biased towards America. JayW 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Altered change which incorrectly qualified statement re law on adult/minor v. minor/minor sexual activity. Throughout US, laws differentiate between these two situations a priori. In some jurisdictions prosecutor can seek an exception, but this by no means true across the states.Volpe

Unsourced discussion

I removed this section from the main article, since it was both jarring to the reader (as in, disruptive to flow of article) and seemed extremely poor form to include this much unsourced info in the first place. Please reinsert with sources as they are found. --tjstrf 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"The mainstream definition of child sexual abuse is predicated on whether minors are developmentally able to give informed consent[citation needed], not just consent based on their feelings and expectations[citation needed]. Informed consent requires full cognitive understanding of one's own mind and the mind of the other person. The scientific evidence from psychological experiments, such as the Sally-Anne test, clearly show that full understanding does not develop until the end of puberty.

Critics of the mainstream definition counter that the focus on informed consent is a red herring[citation needed]. They believe the issue should be whether sexual relations involving simple consent are harmful[citation needed]. They believe they are not[citation needed]. They point to a long tradition of older men marrying young girls that is common across time and cultures[citation needed], and also to pederasty (man/adolescent-male sexual relations), which was deemed acceptable in Ancient Greece, New Guinea, and feudal Japan[citation needed]. It is not clear whether the absence of informed consent is a predictor of harm[citation needed]."

Acts unwanted by adult

Can someone add information concerning sexual acts of a minor unto an adult who is unwilling to engage in or unable to stop such acts? i.e can a minor rape an adult or is the adult (even an incapacitated one) guilty of some crime? I see nothing in this article to clarify that.

Distinction between adults and minors

The article was inaccurate to make a blanket statement that adults involved with minors are treated differently than minors with minors. In Michigan, for example, all 17 year olds who commit serious felonies are tried in adult court automatically despite being "minors", and there is no "age buffer" law for first, second and third degree criminal sexual conduct. The number of minors who are waived to criminal court on these charges, be it automatically or with the consent of the judge, makes the statement inaccurate. I'm open to other ways of phrasing the sentence, but it has to be made clear that juveniles are on many occasions treated as harshly as adults in the same circumstances. St. Jimmy 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement at issue is as follows:However, state and federal laws ##may## treat an adult who performs sexual activity with a minor differently from two minors who perform sexual activity with each other. (your change marked off with # sign above.)
Your argument is: number of minors waived to criminal court makes statement inaccurate. However, the above statement is not one discussing prosecutorial process. The statement concerns the provisions of the laws themselves, and concerns the initial differentiation of acts performed by adults v. acts performed by minors. To clarify:
You claim there is no age buffer for CSC crimes; this is incorrect. Referring to MI Criminal Sexual Conduct Act MCL 750.520a et seq. ("CSC"), note that there is in fact a "Romeo exception" for CSC 1, 2, and 4. Spread is 5 years. CSC 3 is defined as penetration using force, which is why Romeo exception is not available for that crime. (I cover the minor/minor+FORCE situation in discussion of Romeo exception.) Treatment of CSC is therefore differentiated in Michigan depending on adult/minor vs. minor/minor contact.
Another example: "Person" is defined in MI law as an adult, and while CSC crimes are non-probationable for an adult [MCL 771.1(1)], but probation is available for any minor accused of a felony. Further, MI Probate Code requires transfer of an accused minor under 17 to Family Court *unless* there is a waiver granted upon prosecutor's motion. Transfer to adult court is therefore *not* automatic by law. That prosecutors can intensify the treatment of a minor who uses force in performing sexual activity with another minor does not change the fact that the legal definitions begin with the laws themselves, which create a priori differences in scrutiny of adult/minor v. minor/minor sexual activity. I will deal with prosecution issues with respect to child sexual abuse in a later section of this article. Since the statement is correct as written, I am undoing your change. Volpe 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
With all respect, I graduated from a Michigan university with a B.A. in Criminal Justice, and I'm telling you, you misread the law. There is no age-buffer for CSC 1, 2, and 3; there is one for CSC 4. I'll give you the chance to go back and check, or to e-mail the Michigan prosecutor of your choice and ask before reverting, because I don't care to escalate this into a silly edit war. In Michigan a "person" who has consensual sex with a 15 year old is guilty of CSC 3. It is therefore prosecuted as CSC 3 even if the charges are held in juvenile court. I don't mean to be making a mountain out of a molehill, but neither do I want to minimize or ignore notable (some would say infamous) aspects of our anti-sex laws. St. Jimmy 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple Contradiction

This article (aside from being US centric/not reflecting a worldwide view) also has a very simple contradiction that needs some clarification. According to the article:

"In every state and federal jurisdiction of the United States, the law states that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort."

However, in some states the age of consent is lower at 16 or 17. The age of majority is 18 everywhere in the USA, so either in some states minors CAN consent to sexual activity or there is some federal law I don't know about. I've changed it to "under the age of consent". I think this is an important distinction; if it can mean the difference between being charged with a crime or not it is not trivial.--adamatari 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regressed v. fixated offenders

The article currently reads "The great majority of offenders fit into the regressed category. Only between 2-10% percent of all offenders are fixated. (citation needed)". According to a study referred to here, 47% were classified as fixated, 53% regressed. --Kvaks 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Defintition of child sexual abuse.

I tried to improve the section on the U.S, definition. I do realize that their are statements in the section that need citations and I will try to dig up the citation where I originally got the info from as soon as I can. I would suggest that this article should discuss the distinction that is often made between that sex abuse involving preteen victims and adult/teen sexual activies which may, depending on the age of consent qualify as statutory rape. --Cab88 09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender differences and effects

I inserted the following text into the paragraph on gender differences:

Rind et al.(1998) showed that this difference was present in 59 college studies on the issue, showing that males who claimed that their abuse was consensual were not significantly less well adjusted than the norm.

Rind et al.(1998) should be mentioned in a discussion of gender differences in CSA. If there is not room for both studies to be cited, I suggest removing Wakefield and Underwager and leaving Rind et al. I am also planning on mentioning it's conclusions in the first paragraph of that section. Rind et al. concluded that most of the effects attributed to CSA could be accounted for by the confounding variable of family environment. ie. what we assume are damage based on sexual abuse is actually largely do to a poor family environment, physical abuse, and neglect. Crazywolf 00:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rind gives a certain view of CSA, but it is a controversial paper. It would be better if we include more than that one report. -Will Beback 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There hasn't been any valid critique laid against it. It's 'controversial' only because its findings contradict a widely-held prejudice. JayW 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with JayW. St. Jimmy 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The wiki article describes in detail the criticisms of the paper's methodology. It's very clear that both Dallam and Rind have axes to grind, so it's difficult to read either critique or rebuttal as the voice of sweet reason. A criticism I've heard elsewhere but is not in the wiki article is the reliance on self-report of the component studies in Rind. So, no, I don't think the controversy is merely ideological.
DanB DanD 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A think one cogent criticism of Rind is the sample being only college students. Rind handwaves this away, but it does matter. I mean, if you did of study of college students who (say) had their faces bitten off by feral dogs, you mind find that, eh, it's not so bad -- after all, all the persons in the study who had this happen made it to college, which a lot of people don't. Herostratus 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the other sentences to the first paragraph of the effects section that I mentioned. Beback reworded it to say that only one study supported the ideas I mentioned, since I only gave one citation. However, Rind et al. was a meta analysis of many studies. So "some studies" is more appropriate than "one study." Crazywolf 04:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse

From the sexual abuse article: Sexual abuse is defined by the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another.

And yet "Child sexual abuse" is defined as any sexual contact whatsoever between a an adult and a minor (where "minor" differs from state to state and country to country anyway). It doesn't matter if the sex is consensual. It doesn't matter if the minor (again depending on juristiction) sees the sex as a completely positive experience. It doesn't even matter if the minor is on the eve of her 16th birthday in a place where the AOC is 16. It is still, bizarrely, classed as "abuse".

The term abuse is deliberately emotive, so that anyone breaking these taboos can be called an abuser. Any rational argument by the abuser can then be filed away as him/her "trying to justify their abuse". The same lame terms have been used to crush rational argument for decades.

If you look at the word "abuse" in the dictionary, and the adjective "abusive", anyone with a brain can see the vast gulf of difference between the legal terminology and the reality. A case of sex between a minor and an adult is automatically classed as child sexual abuse even if the case is not abusive in any respect.

The real issue is the legal AOC itself and, on a deeper level, the FALSE but immensely popular idea that a "minor" (a classification which varies depending on AOC in different countries) cannot enjoy any sexual contact with an adult without it being "abuse".

As somebody sexually "abused" (see the loaded term?) in my own childhood, I KNOW this to be utterly false. My sexual experiences did not damage me in the slightest, although the aftermath did, once various witch-hunting adults became involved. I practically had to withstand a form of brainwashing that I'd been the victim of a hideous assault, when in fact everything had been consensual.

Until the assumption of harm is removed, until children are emancipated to explore sexual experiences with whoever they choose, and until arbitrary AOC laws are abolished in favour of laws only against forced or coerced sex, there is no real hope for any sanity to enter this field. The CSA witch-hunters, with popular backing, will continue to ruin lives for the sake of a date on a birth-certificate. ---Kate

Have you ever considered editing on subjects like, say, anything you don't have such a strong opinion about? Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so it's not exactly helpful to hear people's rants/sob stories/personal opinions/whatever on the talk page. Unless you are a notable source, your input is utterly non-helpful and indeed detracts from the main goal of this page, improving our verifiable, objective coverage of the subject at hand. Not to be rude or uncivil, but it's totally worthless to make these additions, all they do is stir up trouble. --tjstrf 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tjstrf (for once - lol). Kate, while I may sympathize about wanting more neutral articles on controversial subjects like this, the talk page is not the place to launch into heated rants that will fall on deaf ears anyway. Let's keep the talk page for discussing specifics on how to keep articles full of NPOV information and devoid of POV/morality politics/etc. I don't mind anyone editing within their areas of interest, so long as the main aim is always NPOV improvement. Btw, I've added a line to address the general area you were talking about, just mentioning the dissent... -Neural 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A very iffy line

"The majority of experts believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors."

Can anyone even begin to substantiate this claim? As someone interested in this area, from a research angle, this seems very fishy and misleading. I suggest re-wording this line at the very least. -Neural 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_1&oldid=1171579473"