Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Logic behind criteria for abuse

Suppose that a 14-year-old American girl goes on vacation to Italy and willfully (and lawfully) sleeps with a 30-something Italian man. Do scholars/physicians/psychologists/courts etc. in the US consider her to be abused sexually? Will she need to go into therapy once back in the States just like her peers who had intercourse with an adult on American soil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 November 2014

Your question has no answer. It contains too many unjustified assumptions, oversimplifies an extremely complex issue, and confuses laws/morality and medical science.Legitimus (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, medical/moral/legal issues got lumped together in the article's very lead and they purport to add up miraculously...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 November 2014

That is one issue I pointed out with your question. I pointed out several issues. You seem to come to the article with either an poor understanding of the subject-matter and/or the English language, or an agenda. So here's the deal: You want to have a conversation about specific changes to make to this article? If so, good; go click "Create Account" at the top of the page, make an account, and we'll discuss. I'm not interesting in talking to a random Polish IP address about a locked article, because it was locked for a very good reason. However, if you're intent to just soap-box about your views or disagreement about the general subject matter, which includes asking loaded questions, this is expressly prohibited under wikipedia's rules and there is nothing further to discuss and this thread will be deleted or archived.Legitimus (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps creating two articles on CSA-one dealing with medical concerns and the other with legal/moral ones-could help to prevent a paradox like the one I presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk • contribs)

The paradox you presented is in no way brought up in this article, because the article only gives brief, passing mention of legal issues and no "criteria" based chronological age are used in the manner you described. Hence, your concern still makes no sense. Legal issues are already handled in Laws regarding child sexual abuse and Age of consent.Legitimus (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anon, the opening should sum up the contents of the article, and the article as a whole certainly does not need to "add up". We are an encyclopedia, remember. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation 31 is a broken link

Citation 31 gives a 404 error when clicked.

The above page is similar in title and url to citation 31, but the content referencing the now-broken link isn't quite justified and reinforced by its content. If the citation 32 supports the sentence "While children may exhibit regressive behaviours such as thumb sucking or bedwetting, the strongest indicator of sexual abuse is sexual acting out and inappropriate sexual knowledge and interest" amply, I'd suggest 31 be removed entirely.

Clayzim (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done replaced with archived version. Thanks! Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse is not the same as molestation.

Molestation is being indicated as an alternate name for child sexual abuse. I have argued against this because child sexual abuse is a pan-term covering molestation, rape and others. The references of the article also describe cases of rape and not molestation; hence child sexual abuse cannot equal molestation even though it clearly includes it.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. As seen with this edit, Nadirali removed the term child molestation from the WP:Lead sentence stating, "not the same. Child rape is also sexual abuse but not molestation.", and I reverted, stating, "It is the same thing, in various WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It belongs per that and per WP:Alternative title." As seen with this edit, Nadirali reverted again, stating, "many references cover rape and penetration which is not molestation but still defined as sexual abuse. This article covers both rape & molestation.", and I reverted again, stating, "Stop removing this, per before. Your argument does not hold up, and the text will therefore be staying, whether you WP:Edit war or not." Nadirali then added Template:Accuracy to the article because of that, stating "talkpage." And here we are. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Combined my section with Nadirali's. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition of rape seems to be in agreement with my argument. And online sources also seem to differ with the articles lead.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. And to be clear, not only does your argument make no sense, and I can combat it with various WP:Reliable sources by making a trip to Google Books, you should not be using a Wikipedia article to support your argument on matters such as these unless you are directly pointing to the sources the article uses. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not using them as sources, it's pointing out that wikipedia is then contradicting itself. Otherwise I can try and make comprimising edits.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You should WP:Indent your posts. I don't want compromising edits from you on this matter; I want you to stop spouting nonsense, and to stop editing from a nonsense angle. No matter what argument you make about child sexual abuse not being child molestation, it will fall flat in this discussion. As anyone who has significantly studied child sexual abuse knows, the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation are commonly used interchangeably, and there is hardly ever a differentiation between the two. The same goes for child sexual abuser and child molester. I don't remember reading a differentiation in that latter case at all, maybe never in the former case. And many sources in the Child sexual abuse article show these interchangeability matters to be fact. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nadirali, should I go ahead and start a WP:RfC on this matter? If you do not provide a valid rationale for your view on this topic, and therefore for the Template:Accuracy tag you placed on the article, that is exactly what I will do if no one else watching this talk page comments on this. I do not have the patience for tags invalidly staying on an article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should the term child molestation be in the lead as a WP:Alternative title?

One view is that "[child molestation is not the same as child sexual abuse]. Child rape is also sexual abuse but not molestation.", and that "many references cover rape and penetration which is not molestation but still defined as sexual abuse. This article covers both rape & molestation." The other view is that "[i]t is the same thing, in various WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It belongs per that and per WP:Alternative title. [The terms child sexual abuse and child molestation are commonly used interchangeably. The same goes for child sexual abuser and child molester.]" For more commentary on this matter, see the #Child sexual abuse is not the same as molestation. section above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be included. As any search shows, most (or all) sources treat child molestation as a synonym for child sexual abuse. KateWishing (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But these same reliable sources also used in the article describe rape. Wikipedia's definition of rape does not call it molestation. I think rape and molestation falls under sexual abuse so neither should be equvalated with sexual abuse, but a form of it.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to not fully understand the meaning of the term "molestation." You appear to be assuming this term is synonymous with "fondling." This is a common misconception, but still a misconception. The meaning and usage of this word has evolved over the past several decades. For centuries it originally meant simply to annoy or harass, but this meaning has virtually vanished from common usage in Modern English. For a time it was largely synonymous with unwanted sexual advances, but now refers to sexual assault in general (inclusive of both rape and non-rape sexual assaults), most frequently that of children. It's rare one ever hears a that criminal "molested" an adult.Legitimus (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Per what has been stated above, and this WP:RfC having expired, I removed the "factual accuracy" tag that Nadirali placed on the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Without bring my credentials into this it appears you are both correct and at odds. And yet neither of you even mention the term interference. A legal term in Canada.

To say sexual abuse or assault might imply some form sex was performed. Were I to say I was molested, sexually or otherwise, I would at least being implying there was physical contact against my will. Omitting specifics about penetration based as much on issues of painful disclosure as the nature of the molestation.

More to the point, both the terms are in wide use by lay people and it would require linguistic analysis to resolve your dispute.

Child sexual interference is inclusive of both your terms and also includes grooming as well as physical contact of a more subtle debatable form where motive and intent become the central issue. . If molestation is generally more specific, it still depends on the context, speaker, and their linguistic habits and level of expertise. DHorse1 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I came to talk about something else to be found under a different topic. DHorse1 (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse and religion.

This is a topic of a highly controversial painful and often prejudiced nature.

And yet to spin it off into a seperate topic and not even mention it in the main body is cowardly at a societal level.

It is a glaring omission. An elephant in the room.

At the same time, I feel this should be authored by men or women qualified to speak about their respective faiths.

If I could be characterized as an atheist follower of Christ, I could not be characterized as a man qualified to write on this topic. On the other hand I'm willing tollerate the demonization, character assassination and organized stalking that could result.

Is there a Pope and a cleric in the house? The two areas of great interest to the public is abuse within Christian institutions and marriage of muslim girls before puberty.

I believe this is more important topic of discussion than symantical and jargon issues. Talk? Or throw in a few sensitive provocative edits. DHorse1 (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is something to be said for the idea that abuse is abuse, and that the places it occurs is almost irrelevant other than allowing access to victims. Abuse occurs among clergy, sports coaches, teachers, parents, day care, medical care, summer camps. What makes religions so special? And there are already several articles talking about exactly what you refer. Unless you are trying to say that some religions actively endorse sexual abuse as part of their religion?Legitimus (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular issue with the points you raise.

If I may clarify... My issue is with abuse by people in authority, condemnation of the abused and, yes, indirect and direct tolerance and even endorsement of abuse within the larger society.

When abuse is committed by "admired" individuals I believe this can greatly aggravate the damage to the survivor. This can certainly be the case within families and I feel it is an increased issue where religion is in play. In short, it matters but is not mentioned in the article at all.

In my experience, the degree of polarization, of taking sides, of reversing who is committing a betrayal does as much permanent damage to survivors as other issues mentioned in the article. Certainly more than the issue of touching vs. penetration.

So although I follow your aurgument, I do think it matters a great deal.. The profession of the abuser is relevant. I believe there is strong anecdotal support for my position and that it deserves at least a passing mention in the article as an aggravating factor.

And to your last question, yes leaders of of theocracies have publicly spoken fondly of their sexual experiences with children.

I think that might be a contributing factor when discussing lasting damage to survivors of abuse despite my strong opposition to religious persecution.

I am typing on a phone and apologise for errors. DHorse1 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is long and I do feel well written so may add that I am specifically speaking about the effects section.

I do agree with the observations and conclusions of the studies generally.

At the same time, by way of example, the worst cases of trauma and pathology I observed involved case where there reports of:

• threats or intimidation by police.
• disbelief, threats or intimidation by social workers.
• expressed acceptance of the abuse by family members centering around love for the abusor.
• any case where the abuser was a religious authority figure.

My position is based on very limited anecdotal reports where the interview resulted more from outward signs of disturbance mentioned in the article as opposed to voluntary reporting.

My complaints regarding the elephant in the room stems from the observation that the article seems to only partly address these issues. For example the good discussion regarding childhood marriage.

It appears to neither speak to the degree these issues are a factor nor rule them out as having a lower causal effect.

Sadly, I lack the expertise and training to speak to these issues myself. DHorse1 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly believe what you say is true. The problem is the policy against Original Research. This means that we cannot use our own personal experiences or anecdotal evidence to add material to the article, even if we are actually trained experts on the subject in real life. Believe me, I know how frustrating that rule can be given my own expertise. But ultimately the rule is for the best, as it prevents a lot of bad material from being added. For example, and you seem new and probably didn't observe this, but there used to be pedophiles that would come to this article and edit it. You can probably imagine what sorts of things they tried to put in.

Now all that said, since you clarified what you meant, I think that there is something worthwhile there and I'm certain there are sources out there we can use to support them. Ideally, you want to find books or scientific studies. I will search for some, and you can as well. If you are not certain how to incorporate them into the article, post the links here and I will see what I can do with them.Legitimus (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification regarding the article content. I will add this to researh material search lists. I was in fact curious about recent hard research partucularly in response to the article. The historical lack seemly due to the extreme difficulty involved as I am sure you are aware.

I will post a new topic referencing the publication in the form of an inquiry regarding its meeting requirements. Of course it is unlikely I would be ahead of the professional community.

The strict requirements for revision are solid all things considered. Please do not interpret my concerns about a single section to reflect on what I felt was an excellent report.

For myself, I consider this thread closed and thanks again for your patience and time in responding to my concerns. DHorse1 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification regarding the article content. I will add this to researh material search lists. I was in fact curious about recent hard research partucularly in response to the article. The historical lack seemly due to the extreme difficulty involved as I am sure you are aware.

I will post a new topic referencing the publication in the form of an inquiry regarding its meeting requirements. Of course it is unlikely I would be ahead of the professional community.

The strict requirements for revision are solid all things considered. Please do not interpret my concerns about a single section to reflect on what I felt was an excellent report.

For myself, I consider this thread closed and thanks again for your patience and time in responding to my concerns. DHorse1 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As a "cause of death"

I removed the following as not in source:

Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation.Herman-Giddens ME, Brown G, Verbiest S; et al. (August 1999). "Underascertainment of child abuse mortality in the United States". JAMA. 282 (5): 463–7. doi:10.1001/jama.282.5.463. PMID 10442662.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The source actually says "There were 12 cases that probably involved sexual abuse of the victim" - there is no indication that sexual abuse was the "cause of death".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC).

This article is misleading

For instance, in the summary readers are told that "child sexual abuse" includes any sexual contact between an adult and a child, that "abuse" is constituted whether the child wanted it or not.

Then we scroll down, and see an intimidating graph that tells us that "child sexual abuse" is strongly correlated with certain disorders.

So the average reader would think: "any sexual contact between an adult and a child is strongly correlated to these disorders, whether this contact is desired by the child or not".

However, we then check the reference for the graph, and we see that the study explicitly included only cases where the behaviour was clearly UNWANTED by the child.

And like this not only for the graph, but in fact the whole article is misleading and manipulative in this way.

Random studies are used for very strong claims in the summary. On the other hand, important reviews and meta-analyses are ignored.

The way the article is written is simply poor, with the differing definitions of child sexual abuse (e.g., some claim it includes wanted, some claim it includes only unwanted) not handled.

Scientific criticism of the "CSA" construct is not handled. The debate on the scientific validity of the concept is not documented.

The way the references have been handled is scientifically worthless.

The article seems to have been affected by morality and law rather than careful scientific documentation.

If scientific research has proven that any sexual contact with a child is harmful, then document it in this article. But do it right. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your faulty "whether the child wanted it or not" logic will not work here, IP. You know that. Take it elsewhere, away from Wikipedia, or this section will be deleted per WP:Child protection. It's been documented time and time again that little children did not have the cognitive ability to consent to sexual activity. Many children who were sexually abused thought they "wanted it" at time because they, as little children, were easily coerced, did not have the ability to know that they were being used by the adult or older adolescent, and because of pleasure that sexual stimulation of the genitals obviously incites. Once they are teenagers or adults, the vast majority of these children hate what was done to them and that they were so easily taken advantage of. The "relationship" between the adult and the child was not equal, for a variety of reasons. Many of these teenagers and adults have one or more psychological problems as a result of the child sexual abuse. Sexual activity with a 7-year-old is not the same as sexual activity with a 17-year-old, which is why the age of consent permits age 17 in many places, but not age 7 in many places; rarely is this article talking about late teenagers as being victims of child sexual abuse. So, no, it's not talking about all adult-minor sexual interactions. The article is based on what the preponderance of the literature on child sexual abuse states...per WP:Due weight. The Rind et al. topic you are clearly referring to does not even come close to having the same level of support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you have an axe to grind. It was nowhere claimed by me that children are capable of informed consent. Here, it is being spoken about how mainstream research about CSA (not fringe) has definitions of "wanted" and "unwanted" contact (referring to simple consent, not informed consent). Nor was it ever claimed by me that children would positively approve of their sexual interactions as they grow up later on. Nor was it ever claimed that CSA is non-coercive. Nor was it ever claimed that sex with a 7 year old is the same as sex with a 17 year old; but you bring an interesting point, given that much CSA research has an "upper age" of 18, this in connection with the fact that this article seems to claim that CSA includes all wanted contact obviously reveals some problems with the logic. As a matter of fact, my personal beliefs were never referenced - they are irrelevant. "The article is based on what the preponderance of the literature on child sexual abuse states.." Which doesn't justify citing random studies instead of reviews or meta-analyses to make strong claims in the summary. Nor does the article properly reflect what the mainstream literature says - for example, the differing definitions (wanted vs. unwanted, age limits etc. are never talked about). Given that threats are being made for pointing obvious objective flaws in the article, I can see very well through the manipulation which must have been involved in writing this.

A simple logical error was spotted: The article claims that CSA includes all sexual contact with children, wanted or unwanted, there are a lot of claims made throughout the article, i.e. "CSA has a correlation to X". These claims are made with sources which however include only contact explicitly labelled as "unwanted" by the person reporting it. (which implies that, neccessarily, statistically some falls outside "unwanted", simple statistical fact). So the article defines CSA as "X", then claims CSA is correlated to "Y" with sources which defined CSA as "Z", and stated that "Z" is correlated to "Y". This is evidently an objective error, but you reply with some rant about your personal beliefs about children and sex. Leave me alone. I want to know nothing about that, nor is my personality relevant at all. This is simply an objective discussion about how scientific research was used in this article. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No axe to grind. Just a familiarity with your type and the faulty "whether the child wanted it or not" logic. Everything you stated, including your "scientific criticism of the 'CSA' construct" and "[t]he article seems to have been affected by morality and law rather than careful scientific documentation" arguments, told me everything I needed to know. We've heard your arguments before, and we don't care...unless you try to skew the article with them. Reviews of the literature state the same thing: Child sexual abuse causes harm, in various ways; they do not focus as much time on "whether the child wanted it or not," and that is precisely due to what I stated above. My comment above was based on the literature, not simply my personal beliefs. Leave you alone? Gladly, if you leave this talk page alone. Then again, I can simply ignore you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse causes harm, in various ways" - did I ever claim it does not? About your second point, wrong, there is much debate about whether definitions include "wanted" or "unwanted" contact in CSA literature. You are entering a personal discussion here, not an objective discussion. It seems that you are completely unable to handle this matter. I won't speak with you anymore unless you start being objective; I will reply to other interested editors though. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Flyer 22 Reborn here. This is faulty logic, and yes, it is more "accepted" for a late teenager than a child (albeit illegal in some places like a lot of the United States). -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I can provide scholarly sources for each of my points that you refer to as "personal discussion" and seem to imply are emotional responses. I stated, "Reviews of the literature state the same thing: Child sexual abuse causes harm, in various ways; they do not focus as much time on 'whether the child wanted it or not,' and that is precisely due to what I stated above." Notice my words "do not focus as much time on." Nowhere did I state "rarely." Point to reviews that focus a lot on "whether the child wanted it or not," if you want to prove me wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you admit that mainstream CSA research talks about wanted vs. unwanted contact. Great. Now integrate this information in the article, and fix it up so it talks about differing definitions. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also agree with Flyer 22 Reborn. I'm looking at the sources of this article (granted there are over 200) and I fail to see the merit of this complaint. 81.4.107.73 has also not provided links to any sources supporting his or her assertions. Wikipedia doesn't care what individual user's opinions are; only what can be shown with reliable sources.Legitimus (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I might get around to adding a Definitions section, mainly because researchers are far more concerned with the child sexual abuse of little children than with late teenagers engaging in sexual activity with legal adults. This is why, for example, the Psychological effects section currently states, "A well-documented, long-term negative effect is the repeated or additional victimization in adolescence and adulthood." It's common for research on child sexual abuse to focus more on little children than on adolescents. That's not to state that adolescents do not count as victims of child sexual abuse; they obviously do, especially young adolescents. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, in places like the U.S., and Japan, it can go up to age 17. While I don't agree with that age, that is how it works. We may be able to add a definition section in the future, but the logic the IP is using here doesn't work. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Law, in the U.S., Japan, or elsewhere, should be completely irrelevant for the purposes of this article, unless it is about the legal concept, then the article has to be changed to make it clear that is what it is referring to. Also, it's irrelevant what ages anyone personally has personal beliefs about. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, child sexual abuse has everything to do with legality. Anyone who has reached the age of consent (or in some cases, the age of majority), if they are sexually abused, it no longer falls under child sexual abuse. -- 20:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

One of my arguments was that the article seemed to be influenced by legal and moral stances; Flyer22 Reborn dismissed this, and you claimed to agree with Flyer22 Reborn. If this article is based on a mix of scientific and legal definitions then it needs to be clearly specified and the whole article needs to be re-worked to fit this fact. Instead of being portrayed as the "universal" that it is now. 81.4.107.73 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I said it still wasn't legal, and I don't agree with age of consent laws practically everywhere. Never said anything about that. I said I was agreeing on the faulty logic on "if the child wanted it or not", and yes, I do agree scientists in this field and lawmakers tend to focus on pre-pubescent and pubescent children rather than post-pubescent ones. They focus more on pedophilia and hebephilia rather than ephebophilia, and that is very true. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finished with this discussion, but I want to make something clear since I very much dislike when my words or views are distorted: I did not state that this article is not based on legal matters. I very clearly objected to the IP stating, "The article seems to have been affected by morality and law rather than careful scientific documentation."

On a side note: Keep in mind that pedophilia and hebephilia refer to strong sexual attractions, and that many people who do not have those strong sexual attractions have committed child sexual abuse. Ephebophilia is also based on strong sexual attraction, but it's a topic that overlaps with normal adult sexual attraction, since 18 and 19-year-olds (legal adults in most parts of the world) may be involved and since many late teenagers, including a number of 16 to 17-year-olds, can be physically indistinguishable from legal adults when it comes to how old one looks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080622235647/http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html to http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222151144/http://www.unescap.org/pmd/documents/me/Sexual%20abuse.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/pmd/documents/me/Sexual%20abuse.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Power and control dynamic for child abuse

I did power and control in abusive relationships covering the power and control dynamic in various abusive contexts but can see nothing relevant to this in child abuse, child sexual abuse or child grooming. This seems like a major oversight. The first section power and control in abusive relationships#Psychological manipulation gives the generic mechanism behind imposing abusive power and control and obviously applies to child grooming. For example, giving the child sweets is an example of positive reinforcement.--Penbat (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of a definition section

Why is it that section one of the article does not address the definition of what constitutes "child sexual abuse". The intro does sort of define the term, though poorly IMO (more on that latter) but the first section in the article is on the effects of CSA without having defined the term properly beforehand so the reader does not knows exactly what it is that we are discussing the effects of. It is not appropriate, per Wikipedia policy, for the intro to be the only place term is properly defined and even then, the intro doesn't even do that properly IMO. Thus I would prepose new section be created before the "Effects" section that defines what is meant by the term "child sexual abuse". Since it is my understanding that this article is intended to address the topic broadly, beyond merely what the law might define as "child sexual abuse" (which can very between countries/states/jurisdictions/etc.) then I proposed we have a 1st section that defines "child sexual abuse" in terms of what researchers on the issue define it as, first and foremost. Then we could address how in general country's law define the term, which may or may not be broader or narrower then the definition used by CSA researchers. over just what the scope of activities and the cutoff age where an activity no longer qualifies as child sexual abuse. Thus the issue of what the word child means in the context of child sexual abuse is something to address in the definition section. It can mean any minor under 18, only minor under the age of consent, prepubescent/early pubescent minors, etc. There is also the issue of what "sexual abuse" is defined in the context of CSA. There is, for example, no consensus currently as to where mere nudity around a child (such as with children in nudist settings or familial nudity) constitutes sexual abuse. All of this should address in a definition of child sexual abuse section. Now, as to my issues with the intro, the definition of CSA used in the intro is both overly narrow and overly broad and thus doesn't properly explain tot he reader what the term means. The first sentence says "Child sexual abuse or child molestation is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation", which I believe a bit overly narrow. I say this because, if a adult engaged in an sexual activity with a child for reasons other then sexual gratification, I'm sure one would be hard pressed to find any legitimate CSA researcher who would argue that it was not "child sexual abuse" in such a case. I don't believe motive matters in all types of CSA as some sexual activities are considered abuse in and of themselves. Some actives with a child are not considered sexual in certain contexts which means they are not "child sexual abuse" in all circumstances. Thus when the intro refers to "indecent exposure (of the genitals, female nipples, etc.)" as a form os CSA , that is not always correct. Indecent exposure is both a cultural concept and a lead concept. An African tribal child is leaving among a tribe where nudity including topless is the norm is not going to be labeled as a victim of CSA in that context by most CSA researchers.. The same applies to children in nudist settings or who witness a public streaker (who's intent is expose themselves specifically to the child.). For nudity around children to be child sexual abuse, it generally must involve an intent of sexual gratification or intent to disturb the child. or invokes the perpetrator intentionally exposing the child to the viewing of a sexual activities such as masturbating. Since laws on nudity and more specifically, what constitutes indecent exposure, very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I don't think it's appropriate to simply use the term "indecent exposure" as a example of a type of CSA, since that could include forms of nudity around children either not viewed as CSA by most CSA researchers or for which much debate still exists (example: Does a father merely being nude around his prepubescent daughter cause psychological harm that would qualifies it as "sexual abuse"?). Either indecent exposure should be removed from the examples of forms of child sexual abuse since these are just examples and not all inclusive or the sentence can be be reworded so that it reefers to "some types of indecent exposure". In conclusion, I think we need to have some discussion of how we are going to define "Child sexual abuse" both in the intro and it a definition section. See, for example, the articles pedophilia and rape, which start with a definition section as the the first or second section in there article (after the intro). --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "statutory rape" as used in the international law section

The sentence "An adult's sexual intercourse with someone below the legal age of consent is defined as statutory rape...". is inaccurate as only a small number of legal jurisdiction use the term "statutory rape" when referring to the act of illegal sex not involving force between an adult and a teenager under the age of consent. The term is more often used as a colloquial term by the general public but most laws refers to said crime as a either a some degree of rape (example: rape on the 3rd degree) or some other name. Also, sex with a prepubescent child is sex with someone below the age of consent but not what is generally meant but statutory rape. That crime is more often called child rape by law and the general public. It would be better to say that it "is defined as a type of sex crime based on the principle that a child is not capable of consent and that any apparent consent by a child is not considered to be legal consent." Then explain the various terms used to classify it under the law such as "statuary rape", "rape in the nth degree", "child rape", etc. with different terms used under the law in certain cases depending on the age of the victim. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122123053/http://www.sp2.upenn.edu:80/~restes/CSEC_Files/CSEC_Bib_August_2001.pdf to http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/CSEC_Bib_August_2001.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apa.org/pi/families/resources/understanding-child-abuse.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405222150/http://www.aegis.com/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html to http://www.aegis.com/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611182141/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

I noticed that reference [42] is not concerning sexual abuse, it's only physical abuse. And that [43] and [44] are simply criticisms on the methods resp. representations of child abuse studies. Additionally the PDF link of [43] is empty. So I suggest to remove them.
Further concerning "Studies have found that 51% to 79% of sexually abused children exhibit psychological symptoms.[41][50][51][52][53]" it's important to mention that those victims are reported cases, i.e. victims who have come to public attention. Other studies are investigating also unreported cases e.g. by recruiting and selecting students. So I would add "sexually abused children WHO HAVE COME TO PUBLIC ATTENTION" or so. Thanks. Paul Haferstroh (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources on misrepresentations of the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse are discussing what the actual effects are. Reported cases are not necessarily "public attention" cases. And it goes without saying that the cases were reported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Reporting on source investigation.

• [42] - Correct, does not cover sexual abuse, only physical and neglect. Part of a cluster of sources on one sentence, so no real loss if removed.
• [43] - Correct, technically a criticism and also a bit dated (1992). Like [42] , Part of a source cluster.
• [44] - Incorrect, this is a criticism of bogus science used by defense lawyers of sexual abusers. Contains details of scientific research supporting psychopathology in victims.

The matter of these cases being ones that come to public attention is not a compelling argument. "Public" has misleading implications for one, implying these papers are based on cases that made the newspapers. Furthermore, these papers studied immediate effects when the children are still young, so they are not comparable to studies of adult college students.Legitimus (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I reread [44]. At first I wonder if prospecting studies based on clinically reported samples are able to prove a causal relationship, because clinically reported victims are usually reported due to their psychological problems - so I don't know. I'd prefer at least to give the information that these results were found by clinical sample studies.
However, I admit you're right that [44] contains details of scientific research supporting psychopathology in victims, but wouldn't it be better to cite the original studies mentioned in [44]?
In any case it would be better not to cite [44] as reference to alcoholism and drug abuse, but along with the other references [14] to [43]. Paul Haferstroh (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not commenting upon that specific paper, however, in social and behavioral sciences, medicine, etc., it is not the statistics which proves causality: causality is postulated by a theory and the data support or do not support its claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Twin studies, for example, can be as good as such a proof. Paul Haferstroh (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”

— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The gist is: in a theoretical vacuum the data are meaningless. So, I am highly skeptical of studies which claim to prove causality, since asserting causality belongs to the realm of theories, not to the realm of empirical findings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To put it briefly: theories assert causality and empirical studies are used to test theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, as the psychological effects on men and women by CSA seem to be in a different order, it should be stated that study [48] (Kenneth Kendler et al.) was investigating the causality of CSA for psychological disorders in women. Paul Haferstroh (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326164558/http://www.wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf to http://wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Update on causal factors

It has been assumed that because most former victims of child sexual abuse do not go on to become perpetrators, victimization is not a causal factor in that type of crime. That conclusion is unfounded and incorrect. The overwhelming evidence is that the majority of non-violent adult offenders were victims of child sexual abuse themselves (e.g., Jesperson, Lalumiere & Seto, 2009). Victimization is an important causal factor, but is not the total explanation. Forensic psychological assessment of adult offenders (Cicchini, 2013) has identified the following: (1) the presence of unmet dependency needs as measured by personality tests; (2) a history of affectional neglect during childhood, particularly involving physical touch and care; (3) a history of sexual victimization (most offenders) or engaging in precocious sexual activity with other children (the minority). (Precocious sexual experiences were identified by Gebbhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy & Christenson, 1965 as possible precursors to adult sexual offending). Sexual touch during childhood in vulnerable boys (those deprived of adequate nurturance and attention) is hypothesized as producing a type of traumatic sexualization which manifests as a confusion or contamination of affectional needs by pleasurable feelings produced by sexual touch, which endures. This often leads to the use of sex as coping to restore wellbeing.

Individuals affected by the childhood events described may include other types of offenders in adulthood such as voyeurs or pornography addicts or men with other sexual addictions, in addition to those at risk of abusing children. In child sex offenders (unlike rapists) the motivation is not violence but the need for affection, affiliation, recognition and to feel special (Groth, 1979; Smallbone & Wortley, 2000). Offending acts by men are typically triggered by life stresses or losses that bring to the fore their unmet dependency needs, and sexual touch is used to temporarily restore wellbeing (Cicchini, 2012; 2013). Often the abuser re-enacts aspects of their own childhood sexuality with the victim. When an offender has developed a habit though repeated offending, the drivers described above may not be readily apparent, but research shows that relapse in sexual offenders against children are heralded by a deterioration in mood and felt wellbeing (Proulx, Perrault & Ouimet, 1999) which if recognized and addressed by seeking professional psychological help, would contribute to a reduced incidence of child victimization (Cicchini, 2012).

References

Jesperson, A.F., Lalumiere, M.L., & Seto, M.C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders ad non-sex offenders: a meta-analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(3), 179-193. Cicchini, M. (2013). Submission in response to Issue Paper 4: PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE IN HOME CARE. Published online as Submission 24, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Australia. Gebbhard, P., Gagnon, J.H., Pomeroy, W.B. & Christenson, C.V. (1965). Sex Offenders: An analysis of types.. new York ; Harper & Row. Groth, A.N. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York: Plenum Press. Smallbone, S.W., & Wortley, R.K. (2000). Child Sexual Abuse in Queensland: Offender Characteristics and Modus Operandi Cicchini, M. (2012). Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: A Guide for Health Professionals and Members of the Community. Kelmscott, Western Australia. Booklet available as a pdf from wwww.Mcpsych (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)PreventingChildSexualAbuse.org Proulx, J. Perreault,C., & Ouimet, M. (1999). Pathways in the offending process of extrafamilial sexual child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11(2), 101-116.Mcpsych (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources aren't equal for Wikipedia, see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS. Some of the sources aren't reviews of research (WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDDEF), some aren't opinion of authoritative medical organizations (WP:MEDASSESS), some are rather old (WP:MEDDATE). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911152635/http://www.johnbriere.com/methodological%20csa%20jccp%201992.pdf to http://www.johnbriere.com/methodological%20csa%20jccp%201992.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation again

As seen here, here, here and here, Staszek Lem is distinguishing child sexual abuse from child molestation at both the Statutory rape article and this article, without any sources supporting such a distinction. The source Staszek Lem is using to make this distinction is a source I recently used at the Statutory rape article. The quote states the following: "Child molestation: A form of sexual assault committed against a child below a certain age. That age is usually set between 12 and 14 since such ages correspond to the onset of puberty, thereby differentiating the offense from statutory rapes (against post-pubescent adolescents) and various degrees of sexual assaults/sexual batteries against victims over the age of consent for sex." It states nothing about child sexual abuse being broader or different than child molestation. Last year, the fact that child sexual abuse and child molestation are synonyms was discussed; see Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 9#Child sexual abuse is not the same as molestation. Consensus, per the literature, is that they are indeed synonyms.

For input, I am pinging Legitimus and KateWishing, who took part in that previous discussion and are as knowledgeable as I am on the topic of child sexual abuse, statutory rape and pedophilia. Also pinging Herostratus, who sometimes helps with such topics, and Fyddlestix, who is involved in a discussion at Talk:Rape myth concerning child sexual abuse, where Staszek Lem started to focus on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It states nothing about child sexual abuse being broader or different than child molestation Does my text say so? Anyway, I hold that "Sexual abuse" and "sexual assault" is not one and the same. (Just as a violent rape against a minor is not a statutory rape. The difference is violence.) If you have legal sources which define showing lewd pictures to a minor as "molestation", I have no objections you add add the refs to the article and I will be happy to self-revert. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Further, this article lists child grooming as a form of child sexual abuse. Are there any refs which describe grooming as a form of molestation? Whereas I see sources which distinguish the concepts ("grooming leads to molestation") Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll need to look this up a bit before I'm 100% confident taking a position on the exact relationship between molestation and abuse, but: edits like this and this just seem to invite confusion to me: they make an unclear distinction between abuse and molestation without clearly defining (or sourcing) what that distinction is, and they rely on a third term (sexual assault) to do that without defining what that means either. This just seems likely to confuse readers imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

without defining what that means Huh? Sexual assault. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand that most of the time there was no distinction. Only recently more forms of subtle child abuse were brought to the attention of the law. I remember reading a 19th century novel which included an old fart who hired a young girl to read books for him under the pretense of poor eyesight and who selected the books which ..er.. you know which. It would have been an absurd idea to sue him for groming at there times. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked does your text state anything about child sexual abuse being broader or different than child molestation. It is what you are claiming regardless, and you are using that claim to keep the lead of the Statutory rape article from stating "child sexual abuse" in its final paragraph and the lead of the Child sexual abuse article from stating "or child molestation." With this edit, you stated, "child sexual abuse is a wider concept." With this edit, you stated, "No. Our article was sloppy in conflating the terms. I fixed it already." With this edit, you stated, "My sources are in wikilinked articles, with full quotation from the source." It's actually one source -- a source I provided for a different article -- and it does not support your view. And with this edit, you stated, "sexual abuse and molestation are not exact synonyms." Disregarding how much of a synonym sexual abuse is to molestation, child sexual abuse and child molestation are undoubtedly synonyms, only rarely being distinguished. Regarding your statement that "Only recently more forms of subtle child abuse were brought to the attention of the law.", the narrow definition of child molestation -- using the term to exclude sexual penetration -- was used in the past. See Legitimus's comment in the previous discussion. Like this 2000 "The Epidemic of Rape and Child Sexual Abuse in the United States" source, from Sage Publications, page 199, states, Kessler et al. used that narrow definition in 1995. The source also notes the problems with that very narrow definition. It is not a definition that is generally used today. And child grooming has been a matter of attention for scholars for years; not really recently, depending on how recently is being defined.

Given the sources in the Child sexual abuse article, which use the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation to mean the same thing, the WP:ONUS is not on me to prove my case that child sexual abuse and child molestation commonly mean the same thing. And there is no requirement that my sources be "legal sources." Either way, the following sources are clear about what I've argued:

Sources using child sexual abuse and child molestation to mean the same thing, child molestation to mean the sexual abuse of children, or what defining the sexual abuse of children entails.

1. This 1995 "Rape of the Innocent: Understanding and Preventing Child Sexual Abuse" source, from Taylor & Francis, page 3, states, "A partial list of the phrases used to describe child sexual abuse is: sexual victimization, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, sexual misuse, child molestation, sexual maltreatment, and child rape (Haugaard & Reppucci, 1988; Russell, 1983)." It also notes that "Atteberry-Bennet and Reppucci (1986) stated, 'A review of the literature suggests that total agreement of the definition of child sexual abuse, even in the cases where sexual intercourse has taken place between an adult and child, does not exist" (p. 1). However, the source is very old. 2. This 2000 "CliffsQuickReview Sociology" source, from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, page 79, states, "One emotionally damaging form of child abuse is child sexual abuse. Also known as child molestation, child sexual abuse occurs when a teenager or adult entices or forces a child to participate in sexual activity. [...] Ranging from simple touching to bodily penetration, child sexual abuse is culturally forbidden in most parts of the world, and is illegal everywhere in the United States." 3. This 2002 "Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, Volume 1" source, from Sage Publications, page 202, states, "While legal and scholarly definitions of child sexual abuse differ, the most common definition of this kind of abuse is any sexual activity involving a child where consent is not or cannot be given. Sexual contact between an adult and a minor child, as well as that between an older and a younger child, are both examples of sexual abuse." 4. This 2009 "Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Mental Health" source, from American Psychiatric Pub, page 229, states, "Child sexual abuse [CSA] describes a wide range of acts. In general, CSA is the use of a child as an object of sexual gratification for an adult or a significantly older minor. [...] CSA is usually defined as contact sexual abuse or noncontact sexual abuse. Contact sexual abuse involves touching of the sexual areas of either the child's body or the perpetrator's body. Noncontact sexual abuse may include exhibitionism, voyeurism, or the child's involvement in the production of pornography. The intent of the act must be demonstrated to be sexual stimulation." 5. This 2011 "The Handy Psychology Answer Book", from Visible Ink Press, page 416, states, "Sexual abuse of children involves inappropriate sexual contact between a child an adult or a much older child. [...] Sexual abuse ranges from exposure of genitals to fondling of body parts to direct genital contact and, ultimately, to anal or vaginal intercourse. [...] The vast majority of incidents of child molestation are not violent. Most child molesters use manipulation or seduction to gain access to their victims. A sizeable number of child molesters use just enough force to accomplish their goal. Only a small percentage is truly violent. These extreme cases attract the most media attention, however, which unfortunately gives the public a distorted sense of the problem of child sexual abuse." The source clearly defines sexual abuse of children beyond fondling and is using the terms child molestation and child sexual abuse to mean the same thing. 6. This 2012 "Encyclopedia of Trauma: An Interdisciplinary Guide" source, from Sage Publications, page 823, states, "Molestation is described as sexual contact that occurs between strangers or distant acquaintances. It is often perpetrated on children, and it perpetrated on both girls and boys. [...] Molestation often involves rape where the child is manipulated or coerced into sexual behaviors, including intercourse. [...] Abusive actions that fall under the definition of molestation include fondling, mutual masturbation, sodomy, intercourse, child pornography and child prostitution. When the word molestation is used, it is often preceded by the word child. Molestation occurs when someone, an adult or another child, has any sexual contact with another individual. [...] It is a form of sexual assault and sexual abuse." 7. This 2016 "Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Fifth Edition" source, from CRC Press, page 308, states, "Those who sexually victimize children have historically been referred to as molesters and those who sexually victimize adults as rapists. [...] [ Molest ] has increasingly come to convey some type of sexual activity with children. [...] Child molestation is also frequently referred to as child sexual abuse, especially when the offender is a family member, or sexual exploitation of children, especially when the offender is not a family member such as an acquaintance." 8. The World Health Organization (WHO) states, "Child sexual abuse is the involvement of a child in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or that violates the laws or social taboos of society. [...] This may include but is not limited to: the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; the exploitative use of a child in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; the exploitative use of children in pornographic performance and materials. [...] Physical force/violence is very rarely used; rather the perpetrator tries to manipulate the child’s trust and hide the abuse. The perpetrator is typically a known and trusted caregiver. Child sexual abuse often occurs over many weeks or even years. The sexual abuse of children frequently occurs as repeated episodes that become more invasive with time. Perpetrators usually engage the child in a gradual process of sexualizing the relationship over time (i.e. grooming). Incest/intrafamilial abuse accounts for about one third of all child sexual abuse cases."

So, given that both the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation can include any sexual activity between an adult and a child or a significantly older minor and a child, including child pornography, how are you distinguishing the terms, and what sources do you have supporting your claims? Unless you were thinking that child molestation only covers fondling (which is not the case, per the sources I've provided above and some sources in the Child sexual abuse article), you seem to be distinguishing the terms because you don't view child grooming or exposing a child to sexual images for the purpose of sexual stimulation (which is a form of child grooming) to be child molestation, but you do consider those things to be child sexual abuse. The thing is that these two terms (child sexual abuse and child molestation) are usually used interchangeably (among both the general public and researchers on the topic). Your sentence of "A sexual assault against a child is called child molestation." currently in the lead of the article makes it seem as though child molestation is not also "a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation." The sources above show that this is not true. Furthermore, child molesters are sometimes referred to as "groomers," as is clear by this 2014 "The Socially Skilled Child Molester: Differentiating the Guilty from the Falsely Accused" source, from Routledge, page 11. Yes, child grooming is about preparing children for child sexual abuse/molestation, but child grooming also falls under the category of child sexual abuse, which commonly means the same thing as child molestation. And, occasionally, definitions of child grooming may include a child being groomed through molestation, which, from what I've seen, covers so-called "light fondling" (or subtle fondling). All that stated, if it's not clear, per the child grooming/"showing sexual imagery to children for sexual stimulation" part, I now understand why you are differentiating between child sexual abuse and child molestation. And just to be clear, that "old fart who hired a young girl to read books for him under the pretense of poor eyesight and who selected the books which ..er.. you know which" was child grooming if it was done to prepare the girl for child sexual abuse. And either way, depending on the girl's age and legal issues for that area, it falls under the category of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Per my arguments and the sources above, you could at least change the lead to following: "Child sexual abuse, also commonly known as child molestation, is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation." Or: "Child sexual abuse, sometimes known as child molestation, is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation." But it's significantly more than a "sometimes" matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my point. However; Point 1: I did not edit the article to say they are different; I am just arguing this in talk page.

Point 2: Show me the references which say they are the same. All above arguments are just your reasoning, may be better than mine, but still, it is a Wikipedian's opinion. The sources you cited are IMO not supportive of your opinion. See eg your cite #6. It does not list grooming as molestation. It also explicitly says "It [molestation] is a form of sexual assault and sexual abuse." -- one is a form of another, ie., not identical; Your cite #7 says " Child molestation is also frequently referred to as child sexual abuse, especially when the offender is a family member, or sexual exploitation of children", i.e., molestation and abuse are not exact synonyms, and so on.

Point 3 (minor): was child grooming if it was done to prepare the girl for child sexual abuse. - No. Our article says grooming is abuse.

Point 4 (major): also commonly known - There is no deadline; I do agree that the terms have been used interchangeably. This may happen for three reasons: they are identical; they are nearly identical so that people don't bother to differentiate; they are nearly identical so that people are sloppy to differentiate. In addition, they may be nearly identical simply because the milder cases of non-explicit child abuse are severely underreported. Also, as I said, in the past the threshold of criminalization was much lower. Because of all this the answer must be based on citing sources, not on our logic. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's too WP:Too long; didn't read, then don't argue with no sources to back up your separation of the terms. Don't go on about irrelevant stuff written in a novel. Don't go on speculation such as "maybes" and "what ifs," as you are doing now. As many know, I argue with sources, and I am well-versed on the topic of child sexual abuse and related topics. When it comes to literature matters, I have no patience for those arguing without sources. I do not like to spend hours and hours or weeks or months arguing the same thing. So the "there is no deadline" argument is not something I particularly care for in this case. And that is why I will be asking WP:Med, WP:Law and WP:Crime for further input. If that is not fruitful, I will be jumping straight to a WP:RfC.

You stated, "Show me the references which say they are the same." There is nothing clearer than "this 2000 "CliffsQuickReview Sociology" source, from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, page 79, stating, "One emotionally damaging form of child abuse is child sexual abuse. Also known as child molestation, child sexual abuse occurs when a teenager or adult entices or forces a child to participate in sexual activity. [...] Ranging from simple touching to bodily penetration, child sexual abuse is culturally forbidden in most parts of the world, and is illegal everywhere in the United States." Or this 2016 "Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Fifth Edition" source, from CRC Press, page 308, stating, "Child molestation is also frequently referred to as child sexual abuse, especially when the offender is a family member, or sexual exploitation of children, especially when the offender is not a family member such as an acquaintance." And I will be using these two sources to re-add "or child molestation," or something similar, to the lead, per my, Fyddlestix's and KateWishing's arguments, and the sources I cited above, unless you can show with reliable scholarly sources that child sexual abuse and child molestation are two different things. Your sources should explicitly state that they are. What I stated above is not simply "my reasoning." The sources show that child sexual abuse and child molestation are defined the same way, and I provided two sources so far stating "also known as" and "also frequently referred to as." Neither source states that "also known as" and "also frequently referred to as" are incorrect descriptions. Your "one is a form of another, ie., not identical" comment makes no sense. Child sexual abuse is a form of sexual abuse. So is child molestation since it means the same thing as child sexual abuse. Of course, it's not identical to sexual abuse; it's a subset of sexual abuse.

The literature typically treats child sexual abuse and child molestation as the same thing and uses the words interchangeably when discussing the topic, as various reliable sources show. It's rare that the two terms are differentiated, and it's almost always only in old literature that they are differentiated. And when they are differentiated, it's usually only in that child molestation refers to fondling, and especially between family members. In this rare and outdated case, child molestation still falls under child sexual abuse. You are asking me to show that child molestation is discussed in the context sexual images or child grooming, but I don't see that I need to. If it's important enough to mention in the lead that child molestation is sometimes differentiated from child sexual abuse in the case of child grooming, then you should provide reliable scholarly sources explicitly stating this. And not sources such as oprah.com. Otherwise, per WP:Due, definitional issues belong in a "Definitions" or "Terminology" section, just like we do with the Domestic violence article and similar articles, where terms usually mean the same thing but are occasionally distinguished. As for your argument about the girl, do stop referring to what Wikipedia articles state as a reference. Either way, that article currently states that "child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the object of sexual abuse." The sexual abuse part is pipelinked to this article -- Child sexual abuse. Many reliable sources are clear that child grooming is done with the intent of child sexual abuse. I stated that the old man showing the girl sexual images was child grooming if it was done to prepare the girl for child sexual abuse. I was not denying that child grooming is sexual abuse. I've stated above that child grooming falls under child sexual abuse. It's still the case that "child grooming" and "child sexual abuse" do not mean the same exact thing, which is why there are two separate articles for them. They far more distinguished than "child sexual abuse and "child molestation" are. While "child grooming" falls under "child sexual abuse," "child molestation" means the same thing as child sexual abuse, and you have provided no sources showing otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen any reliable source insist on a difference between "child sexual abuse" and "child molestation". There might be a fuzzy difference in nuance between the two terms that will vary between speakers, but Flyer's sources and others show that "child molestation" can be applied even to non-contact acts. Another example is in the Georgia criminal code; it defines "child molestation" like so:

"A person commits the offense of child molestation when such person: (1) Does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person; or (2) By means of an electronic device, transmits images of a person engaging in, inducing, or otherwise participating in any immoral or indecent act to a child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person."

Thus, "showing sexual imagery to children for sexual stimulation" is child molestation under the Georgia code. Our article should not imply there is a hard distinction here without strong sources directly stating so. (The alternatives Flyer mentioned would also be fine.) KateWishing (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If someone wants to assert that "abuse" and "molestation" are technically different, it is up to them to first produce good sources which show the point without walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a really good idea to get input from the law project first. If there does exist a clear and obvious differentiation between the two terms, it would probably be most clearly stated in the relevant laws. Also, maybe, it might be and probably is the case that at least some governments and other entities use on or the other term exclusively for legal matters, leaving the other term for conduct which might be objectionable but not necessarily illegal. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I dropped a note at WP:LAW about this discussion. But one or a few laws stating a differentiation between the two terms doesn't stop the fact that the terms usually are not differentiated. So many sources use the terms in the same sentence or paragraph to obviously mean the same thing. And then we have the sources that define them the same way or note that they are also known as the other. I suggested a "Definitions" or "Terminology" section for the cases where there have been deviations or distinctions. Some sources do note that scholars have not always defined child sexual abuse in the same way. And, in the past, "molestation" and "child molestation" were limited to fondling in some reports, surveys or studies. But these days, sources, including authoritative ones such as the American Psychiatric Association, define child sexual abuse/child molestation as an act where an adult or significantly older minor (usually a teenager) uses a child for sexual stimulation (whether via fondling, via sexual penetration or via some other means of sexual gratification). Of course, the wording varies slightly among sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone wants to assert that "abuse" and "molestation" are technically different it is up to them to first produce good sources -- I understand it is difficult to beat through the wall of text above, but my opponent colleague themselves has already provided ones, as I mentioned in my reply tagged "Point 2". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, and I'm sure that Johnuniq specifically means "child sexual abuse" and "child molestation." You have yet to provide solid sources stating or even clearly indicating that "child sexual abuse" and "child molestation" are technically different. And neither have I (although I did provide a reliable source showing that Kessler et al. used a narrow definition of child molestation in 1995, and that this narrow definition is considered flawed). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever was said above, I see a good resolution suggested: Leave the first sentence in the "abuse or molestation", since the vast majority of the use does not draw the distinction, and add a section about terminology, which would include various synonyms and hair splitting. I hope case closed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED.

My opinion is: The distinction, or lack thereof, between the two terms should be included in the lead.

My response to most sentences in this discussion that reference "the law" in any form: Which law? Whose law? There is really no reason to believe that all US states use exactly the same terminology in their laws, so why would we expect the entire world to have settled on the same wording? If a few jurisdictions happen to give different names for different offenses, then that's fine, and might be worth mentioning, but let's not mistake "the current law in my personal jurisdiction" for "the way it is around the world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, given that there is rarely any distinction, and that this distinction mainly concerns limiting "child molestation" to fondling, which is an outdated definition of the term, how is it WP:Lead material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I noted above, see the Domestic violence article and how we cover variations of the term domestic violence and its synonyms in that article. We don't include all of that in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's lead material because the alternate term redirects here, and therefore some readers will want to know why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, given that it's bolded in the lead as the WP:Alternative title (letting readers know that they've landed on the right page), and that the two terms mean the same thing, with only occasional instances of "child molestation" being restricted to fondling and/or family members, I doubt that many readers will wonder why the lead states "also child molestation" or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ Flyer22(on this point)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion break

This argument ought to be over whether to conflate child sexual abuse with child sexual molestation. Simply "child molestation" seems wrong because 'molest' can have non-sexual uses even if its most prominent usage in present day is usually to refer to undesired sexual situations. As to whether or not the verbs 'abuse' and 'molest' are synonymous, I'd have to say no. You can draw a Venn diagram here, they certainly overlap a great deal but you can have non-abusive molestation (undesired contact between equals) and abusive non-molestation (desired contact between empowered/disadvantaged) as outliers even if most situations are undesired contact between empowered/disadvantaged. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall, you are a WP:Sock. And we both know who you are a sock of. I reverted you per what I argued above with reliable sources, and per others backing me on that. Animalparty reverted your WP:POVFORK -- the creation of the Child sexual molestation article. And I reverted your creation of the Molestation and Sexual molestation pages, seen here and here. You stated that "molest can have non-sexual uses." First of all, what WP:Reliable sources do you have supporting you on that? Second of all, we do not give much weight to minor deviations in terminology. Per WP:Primary topic and WP:POVFORK, '"child molestation" should redirect to the Child sexual abuse article (you were reverted on the creation of the Child molestation page by a different editor). Per WP:Primary topic, "molest" and "molestation" should redirect to the Sexual abuse article. As for "sexual molestation," that should redirect to the Sexual abuse article as well (unless it currently redirecting to the Sexual assault article is actually proven to be better). Furthermore, as noted by this 2012 "Encyclopedia of Trauma: An Interdisciplinary Guide" source I linked to above, "When the word molestation is used, it is often preceded by the word child." Rarely does the term molestation refer to adults these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just like to remind everyone that Wikipedia covers topics, not necessarily simply words, as it is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The fact that "molest" can have alternate meanings or connotations does not mean we need an article for every distinct usage. Molest can simply mean "bothering", but that doesn't necessitate an article on child bothering. The scope of this article should be broad enough to include all terms commonly understood to be synonymous, even if not exactly synonymous. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

add term

Child sexual abuse, child molestation or pederasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4111:B300:CD96:3E95:FAFD:9B9F (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, pederasty is not a WP:Alternative title. It's not the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Thanks. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Small error in dates

There's a typo in final sentence of "Civil lawsuits" section. "In 2010" should be "In 2013," otherwise it appears that these men were prosecuted for crimes committed in the future. Linked article (reference 236) bears out that this is a typo. If someone with access could fix that, it'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:C000:4147:744C:9D7:CCC5:3F1F (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting to the mistake. I actually have removed that line and the line before it because neither of them were civil lawsuits, but rather criminal offenses where arrests occurred. These appear to have been placed in this section inappropriately.Legitimus (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Article title phrasology

"Child sexual abuse" seems odd and stilted to me. Wouldn't "Sexual child abuse" make more sense? Or perhaps other words should be used entirely? "Child sexual abuse" a commonly used phrase?

Bearsca (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If you cast your eye down the long list of references, you should quickly convince yourself that the existing title reflects common usage. So I oppose a change. (In any case i disagree that the proposed replacement title makes any more sense.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.187.27 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

dead links

the soucres are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.197.234 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Female child molesters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Female child molesters. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  12:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019

Bourneeffect007 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
0

 Not done Nothing has been requested. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit Request October 2019

Section Offenders, and Subsection Recidivism currently reads as follows:

Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. Estimated rates among child sex offenders vary. One study found that 42% of offenders re-offended (either a sex crime, violent crime, or both) after they were released. Risk for re-offense was highest in the first 6 years after release, but continued to be significant even 10–31 years later, with 23% offending during this time. A study done in California in 1965 found an 18.2% recidivism rate for offenders targeting the opposite sex and a 34.5% recidivism rate for same-sex offenders after 5 years.

It should be changed to read as follows:

Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. Estimated rates among child sex offenders vary. One study found that 42% of offenders re-offended (either a sex crime, violent crime, or both) after they were released. Risk for re-offense was highest in the first 6 years after release, but continued to be significant even 10–31 years later, with 23% offending during this time.A study done in California in 1965 found an 18.2% recidivism rate for offenders targeting the opposite sex and a 34.5% recidivism rate for same-sex offenders after 5 years. However, because recidivism is defined and measured differently from study to study, one can arrive at inaccurate conclusions being made based on comparison of two or more studies that are not conducted with similar methodology.(R1)

The additional supporting reference, in APA format(indicated above by R1) is as follows:

Przybylski , R. (2017, March). Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism. Retrieved October 11, 2019, from https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html .

Thank you in advance for assisting with this edit. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also see WP:SYNTH. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra Please explain why WP:SYNTH applies here? You may do well to review WP:SYNTHNOT. Notably, Summarizing the source is NOT WP:SYNTH, nor is explanation of the source. Also, WP:SYNTH is not presumed (meaning you would need to be able to explain how a new conclusion is being synthesized from the source.) To me it doesn't seem to apply because of the fact that nothing new was "Synthizied" whatsoever that the source doesn't directly posit. Rather, this merely took a direct quote and rephrased it to mean quintessentially the exact same thing had it been used without alteration for the purposes of fair-use copyright consideration. (i.e. that it is probably copyright violation to simply cut-and-paste and mere rephrasing isn't what WP:SYNTH is about or intended to be applied to, otherwise the entirety of Wikipedia might be vulnerable to copyright infringement claims.) Notably, here because there was no new "conclusion" that the article itself doesn't make directly, there is no WP:SYNTH argument to be made. Therefore, because it seems clear that you probably didn't take the time to carefully read the entire reference citation if you bothered to look it up at all, you may wish to carefully re-evaluate your argument and state the reasons why you think a new conclusion is being made, as well as what that conclusion is. As to being an "unreliable source" you have failed to state any specific reasons why you believe the source is unreliable, and the burden is on you to demonstrate reasons the source is unreliable. Given that this was a government source, your argument there is an uphill battle at best. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I’m abstaining from handling this request further. No objections to anyone else handling it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Upon taking a closer look at the edit request, I realize that my decision-making in this edit request was flawed. I apologize to the user for my decline. I’m inclined to accept the request, although I do have a slight concern about the final line for your requested edit (specifically, “one can arrive at inaccurate conclusions. . .” Ideally, I’d like to avoid using “weasel words” for a B-class article, if at all possible, although I’m currently drawing a blank for how it could be reworded. It’s been a nightmarish school year so far. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand perhaps the concern for the wording. I myself couldn't find any other suitable way to word this that represents what the source is saying. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

More rounded view of Rind Controversy

Hello, I recently studied the Rind controversy in a course about science and culture. When I reviewed the summary here, I felt it omitted important some published/peer-reviewed responses to the article. As such, I attempted to write a concise but rounded overview of the debate that occurred after the article's publication. I hope it was a productive edit.Fixer1234b (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The prior version was a bit too brief, I will grant, but these edits I feel start to tip a little too far the other way. It's a touchy subject because the study was and still is used by egosyntonic pedophiles to justify their actions, whether that was the study author's intent or not. Did you read the main article on the Rind et al. controversy? It's very comprehensive.Legitimus (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. Also, the Fixer1234b account is very likely a sock. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I am not getting where did John B123 found any connection of this and this with the "Child prostitution" or "Child sexual abuse"? Source does not even support the content. The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children, then why you see the requirement to misrepresent the source? The source has been badly misrepresented.

You agree that my removal was correct but you are trying to find a way to get through the content anyhow. This is not allowed per WP:SYNTH. The information has to be about "child prostitution" or "child sexual abuse" or else it is just POV pushing and original research. The source mainly talks about a village where girls work as prostitute as they outnumber boys.

Given the discussion on your talk page here, you are only WP:STONEWALLING at this stage. NavjotSR (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

NavjotSR, WP:Synth is not being violated here. I've now read the source. It states, When they are deemed old enough, perhaps at the age of 11, most are expected to start doing sex work....She remembers what the adults in her village told her when she was 15, and her family was having money problems....That was when she started....Girls in Sagar Gram, which lies next to a highway, are groomed for this life virtually from birth. Parents decide which of their daughters will fetch the best price. Older girls teach them how to attract customers from passing trucks and cars. The younger ones sometimes stow under beds, observing the others at work....The legal age of consent in India is 18. Madhya Pradesh, the state in which Sagar Gram is situated, recently passed the death penalty for anyone who rapes a child under 12, also increasing jail terms for adults who have sex with someone under 18. Police say seven people were arrested for child sexual exploitation offences in Sagar Gram in the past year, five of them women who sold their underage daughters. The only way this could be synth would be if this was not child sexual abuse. Why are you claiming it is synth? Crossroads ^-talk- 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, You agree that my removal was correct but you are trying to find a way to get through the content anyhow is a complete fabrication. As I have previously told you, I do not agree your removal of the content was correct.

Your edits have been reverted by myself and other users. Despite Crossroads's warning about removing the same content on Child prostitution, you continue to WP:EDITWAR over this content. Please comply with WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Your text says "perhaps at the age of 11, most are expected to start doing sex work", is not same as saying "they start doing sex work at 11". Are we going to write that "Perhaps most girls in Sagar Gram village are expected to engage in sex work by the age of 11"? Wikipedia is not for speculations or dubious information. None of the words from the source support what you have been restoring; "In India, in what is termed 'caste slavery', an estimated 100,000 lower-caste women and girls are groomed into prostitution as a family trade." Especially when "women and girls" can be of any age and not just children, that is how the source is being misrepresented badly. Clearly the Wikipedia text is creating out a meaning which is not exactly in the source. Now since the whole story from The Guardian is itself about only a single village where prostitution is taking place, why we are even adding it when the broader details about the entire country already exists on both articles? This is a clear breach of WP:UNDUE. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at the reference and I'd like to point out that it discusses one village, Sagar Gram, as well as one caste, the Baccharas. As of now, the article makes it appear that the behaviour described in the paragraph is occurring on a national basis, rather than among the Bacchara caste of Sagar Gram. Additionally, if you all decide to retain the information, the 100,000 estimate should be attributed to Ashif Shaikh of Jan Sahas, rather than using Wikipedia's voice; I should note that he seems unsure of the figure, however. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the above that the content is UNDUE and OR and it must go given the speculations and dubious relevance. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is frustrating when editors meticulously address questions brought up only for it to not be looked at anyway. Makes it hard to have good faith and think every time an issue on India comes up, users get embarrassed or offended. @NavjotSR, you first brought up that "The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children" and then user:Crossroads quoted the source that literally talks about children and that counts for nothing to you. The issue is brought up that this is not representative nationally, but that it has to exist everywhere in the nation was never a criteria. JustBeCool (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you must avoid misrepresenting sources in first place. The information in question is backed with words like "expected", "perhaps", and is ultimately about "women and girls". You need a lot better argument than selective WP:CANVASSING and violate WP:NPA. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment concerned the paragraph as it was written extrapolating the tragedies occurring in one caste of one village to the entire country. I do not have a problem with mentioning the information, if that is the consensus between the lot of you; however, claims should be properly attributed and the village should be specified, rather than making this seem to be a country-wide activity. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Asia" section contain information about caste based prostitution involving children in India? JustBeCool (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per my comments above. It is discussed in good sources like The Guardian and Al-Jazeera (see WP:RSP). It meets WP:V and appears to be WP:Due. This RfC is about this material, by the way. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • JustBeCool, don't forget that the closer won't know your position on the matter merely from having opened the RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Crossroads since it is backed by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. It is not exactly backed by the reliable source. The text says "perhaps at the age of 11, most are expected to start doing sex work", is not same as saying "they start doing sex work at 11". Are we going to write that "Perhaps most girls in Sagar Gram village are expected to engage in sex work by the age of 11"? Wikipedia is not for speculations or dubious information. None of the words from the source support what you have been restoring; "In India, in what is termed 'caste slavery', an estimated 100,000 lower-caste women and girls are groomed into prostitution as a family trade." Especially when "women and girls" can be of any age and not just children, that is how the source is being misrepresented badly. Clearly the Wikipedia text is creating out a meaning which is not exactly in the source. Now since the whole story from The Guardian is itself about only a single village where prostitution is taking place, why we are even adding it when the broader details about the entire country already exists? This is a clear breach of WP:UNDUE. NavjotSR (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This source is 'being misrepresented badly' because 'girls' can be any age not just children? The literal title of the article is "The Indian village where child sexual exploitation is the norm". The actual misrepresentation is to do an acrobatic stretch and say the article is not talking about child sexual abuse. The other allegation which was seconded by the two users below is that this is only about a single village. It is about a caste, which is still worth mentioning, and even when the latest edit to mention about other castes was put in [1], it was still removed by you so then why complain? JustBeCool (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• No per above and WP:OR. Kaweendra (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• No as per above 2 reasons. It is WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I however believe that the religion based prostitution involving children in Pakistan can be added. There are enough reliable sources online supporting that non-Muslims are victimized - please see this article.-Dr2Rao (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Whilst the Guardian focuses on one village, the source estimates 100,000 women and children are in this situation, so the village is being used as an example, rather than saying it only happens in that village. The 100,000 includes women and children, but we don't know the proportion of juveniles. Whatever the proportion, some lower-caste children are being prostituted; to exclude the information over semantics is at best burying your head in the sand over this abuse. --John B123 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per John B123. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes this topic was removed with the edit summary "clear consensus to remove, per talk page" after the first discussion above when there were three editors in favor of keeping the content and three editors in favor of removing the content and another asking it to be edited further to show a nationwide picture, so how was it 'consensus' let alone the need to add the adjective 'clear consensus'. Concerning the editor asking to change to show a nationwide picture, that was taken to account and edited [2] but was still removed by the same editor who objected to the topic. Perhaps this did not actually need a RFC but I started one as a courteous way to stop edit warring. JustBeCool (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• No per NavjotSR. Wikipedia isn't for poorly written speculations per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Agree with JohnB: burying our heads in the sand over the abuse doesn't seem like the appropriate way to go. Comatmebro (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per comments above. Poorly written WP:SYNTH, which is almost off-topic to this subject in hand, should be disallowed in a heavily covered subject like this or anywhere else. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference 121

Pretty new to Wikipedia editing in general, but Reference 121 "Resources for Responding to Child Sexual Abuse" has been moved or was cited incorrectly. The proper source can be found here.

https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Responding_To-Child-Sexual-Abuse-028.aspx

104.156.109.235 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! I'm pretty sure the content was simply moved.Legitimus (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Link number 195 no longer works.

Title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.204.37 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect frequency statement "child sexual abuse"

It seems there is an error in this article concerning the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“. This article defines „child sexual abuse“ as sexul contacts of „minors“ with persons with a big age difference (typically 5 years or more). In this sentence then is the mistake about the prevalence of this „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference:

„A 2009 meta-analysis of 65 studies from 22 countries found a global prevalence of 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males.“

As a source this study is given:

„The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis“

Lots of the studies of this meta-analysis counted every forced sexual contact as child sexual abuse. Just one example is this study:

"Higher prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among Latino men who have sex with men than non-Latino men who have sex with men: Data from the Urban Men’s Health Study"

So sexual abuse of peers was counted in the meta-analys as „child sexual abuse“.

According to dark field studies about 70 % of „sexual abuse“ of „children“ is done by peers (age difference <= 5 years). Just one example of such studies:

„A comparison of peer and nonpeer exposure to unwanted early sexual experiences among students in South Africa and Belgium“

So from my point of view to give the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference it would be necessary to have a look at scientific studies about the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a 5 year age difference. I am currently aware of one German study which had the result that from the 16- to 20-year olds 1,8 % were „sexual abused“ with body-contact:

Stadler et al. (2012): Repräsentativbefragung Sexueller Missbrauch 2011, KfN Forschungsbericht Nr.118, Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V. (KFN), https://kfn.de/wp-content/uploads/Forschungsberichte/FB_118.pdf, assessed 18-Sep-2021

If anybody is aware of any other relevant studies it would breat if he could give us that information here. It would be good to have some more studies, maybe 4 or 5, wich could show us the real prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a 5 year or bigger age difference. Would be a kind of a small meta-analyis, not perfect, but better than nothing. Older studies migh be misleading because sexual contacts of „minors“ with much older persons decreased strongly in the last two decades accoding to studies.

Without a correction this article counts peer sexual abuse as „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference which is scientifically clearly wrong from my point of view.

Sex abuse in choirs

There are hundreds of incidents in choirs. The subject is too difficult for me linguistically. Here are four sources:

USA https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/nyregion/years-of-sex-abuse-described-at-choir-school-in-new-jersey.html

Germany https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40643253

UK https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/choirmaster-guilty-child-sex-abuse-portsmouth-b1856117.html

Denmark https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-abuse-scandal-hits-elite-danish-national-girls-choir-8580c3fqk

Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sex abuse in sport

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jun/18/perpetrators-of-child-sexual-abuse-use-sport-as-cover-inquiry-finds

https://stjohnsbuildings.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-sex-abuse-in-sport-Philip-Grundy.pdf

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-02/time-for-sporting-bodies-to-get-real-about-child-sexual-abuse/101028396 Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ifthe two subjects are too detailed here, they need sepate articles. Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What can be done about the recent removed talk page edit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1126700904 I’ve looked up their IP and they seem to be located in Jamaica, I am not sure what else can be done if they do not report this allegation themselves. I started a topic on their talk page but don’t know if they’ll see it, perhaps it is a troll but still strange Justanotherguy54 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Economic burden: could this section be added?

Economic burden

Many studies have shown the terrible economic burden of child sex abuse. Sukusala (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Could this section be added?

Obstruction of justice by governmental agencies

Implementing child protection measures is sometimes obstructed even at Governmental level. For example, the National Child Protection Authority of Sri Lanka was initially granted a powerful place in 1999, directly reporting to the President, "thus, giving it unwritten powers to expand its boundaries when taking actions against predators...However, in 2006 measures were taken to place the NCPA under the Ministry of Women and Children, a move that showed a gradual reduction in the commitment due to various reasons."

The NCPA has itself been accused of obstructing justice, where one of its own officials was accused of child abuse in 2016. While this official holds a powerful position at the NCPA, the Chairperson hasn’t taken any action. Sukusala (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Spiritual harm: could this section be added?

Spiritual Harm

Psychologists have noted the following spiritual effects:

1) Soul wound, soul loss, soul death, soul rape, or soul murder

2) Spirit possession requiring exorcism or deliverance ministry Sukusala (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no objective evidence that souls and spirits do exist, much less that exorcism works as intended. In the end, Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia, not an annex of the Roman Catholic Church or whatever other church. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Primary prevention of child sexual abuse" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Primary prevention of child sexual abuse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 17 § Primary prevention of child sexual abuse until a consensus is reached. Dronebogus (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Asia additions by sock Koreangauteng

[3] addition made a sock editor whos additions should have been removed anyway per ban revert but also using claims by a human rights minister as proof while no actual evidence was provided for her claims flimsy source to push a point of view.Mrdabalina (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [4] Another edit. Mrdabalina (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:BANREVERT, edits made by a WP:SOCK may be reverted once. If a good faith editor restores those edits, assuming responsibility for them, then BANREVERT no longer applies. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KatherineH1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KatherineH1 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Public Policy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samthebossbabe (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mundozurdo, Jillianmm31.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KatherineH1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Averagestudent24 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 May 2024 and 12 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rashanmarcus (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mdbutler7, Sld99, Jpow05, Tltuggle18.

— Assignment last updated by Priyaraymond (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)