Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Distinction

Are we attempting to make any distinction between the ages of the people under 18 involved? I see a huge difference between a 15-year-old boy fooling around with a 22-year-old girl, and a 40something-year-old man raping an 4-year-old girl. I know people who have been in both of these situations. The girl was (and is) devastated. The teenager was psyched and went back for more. As far as I know nothing magical happens overnight when you turn 18. Are we making any account of that in this article? It sounds like some people think that people under 18 are sexless beings who do not (or must not) have any sexual experiences at all. That just doesn't jive with the recalled high school experiences of almost everyone I know. Almost everyone I know personally enough to talk about it with was sexually active on some level after the age of 16 or so. Many were younger when they began having sexual experiences with peers. Must we lump normal sexual development in with pathological rape and abuse of prepubescent children? They're not the same thing! Joie de Vivre 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree personally, but this kind of generalization is standard. we could add information on criticisms of the child sexual abuse over-definition, though that might piss off the all or nothing editors here... ~[[kinda]] 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could pull in some statistics on the ages when people have their first consensual sexual experiences... that might help with the dichotomy surrounding "what people 'should' do" versus what they actually do. The dismal failure rates of abstinence-only education in high school might have a place here, too; they might help shed some factuality on the general stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach American society, at least, takes to human sexual development. I do think adults should keep their hands off of youths, but it's ridiculous to go from that to suggesting that teenagers don't have sex drives. Joie de Vivre 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Studies reflecting age differences would certainly be relevant. -Jmh123 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CSA in the United States is defined as sex between an adult and a minor, or sex between minors with an age difference of more than 5 years. The age or developmental status of the victim of abuse (e.g., pre- or post-pubescent), the relationship of the victim to the abuser, and the degree of physicality all contribute to the assessment of the severity of the abuse. As you can imagine, severity therefore spans a wide range, as Joie points out. The legal and therapeutic responses to substantiated abuse are supposed to match the severity (e.g., criminal charges range from misdemeanor to Class A Felony). The problem of assessment is therefore crucial. However, all CSA is abuse, meaning a violation of the victim's human rights: the abuser is leveraging a power imbalance to another person's disadvantage. Our society has determined that children are especially deserving and in need of special protections against abuse.Vendrov 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

I propose that the "effects" section and the "positive and consensual cases" sections be combined into one "effects" section. Both concern the same subject, that is, how child sexual abuse affects children. The "effects" section is NPOV, discussing effects regardless of 'positive/negative'. Rind's study is discussed in both sections, to make the same point. The idea of the experience being reported as positive appears in both sections. Therefore, it seems to me that the separate 'positive' section serves only to accentuate a certain POV. I also noticed that Rind's meta-analysis of 59 college studies has been changed to 15 studies in one section, but continues to be 59 in the other--citation to the same publication. What am I missing?

In 'effects':

One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations, however, evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection.[17]

Wakefield and Underwager note the difference between CSA experiences of males and females, where more males than females report the experience as neutral or positive, saying that "It may be that women perceive such experiences as sexual violation, while men perceive them as sexual initiation."[18] The research by Rind et al. suggests that this difference was present in 59 college studies on the issue, suggesting that males who claimed that their abuse was consensual were not significantly less well adjusted than the norm.[5]

In 'positive...':

Several studies have indicated that some children regard their sexual abuse positively.[39][40][41] Boys have a tendency to experience the sexual contacts as positive more often than girls. A meta-analysis by Rind et al. of 15 studies found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases.[5] The Rind study is criticized by other researchers on a number of grounds.

Adrian Coxell examined the effects of child sexual abuse in a sample of 2474 men in Great Britain and found that of those who had a sexual encounter prior to the age of 16, over half of the experiences had been consensual. (The mean age for first or only experience of abuse was 11, with a standard deviation of 3.) [42] An examination of the main effect of harm showed that the consenting children had no more problems than the control group.[43] Rind stated that the normal perception on child sexual abuse is based on an incest model where father-daughter incest serves as a model for child sexual abuse cases. He says that this view may not provide an accurate model for the effects of consensual experiences.[40]

What is "the main effect of harm" referred to here? "An examination of the main effect of harm showed that the consenting children had no more problems than the control group." Shouldn't we be told specifically what that main effect is? Did the analysis of other effects, not the "main effect" indicate that there were more problems? -Jmh123 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

a merge would be fine. rind et al. (1998) examined 59 studies, but the reaction section only used data from 15 of them. the "main effect" concerns whether the men studied had experienced a psychological problem for at least two weeks in their life. on your last question, i'm not certain, but probably. ~[[kinda]] 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole posotive bit needs throughly researching, eg children may report positive effects and a few years later realise their lives have been devastrated by this. There was a recent report on CNN of a sex offender of boys whop said he had thoyught hios victims would enjoy being abused as he thought he had enjoyed being abused, but doubtless if he hadnt been abused he would not have abused and this abusing clearly had ruined his life. I strongly support he merging into an effects section, SqueakBox 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i already added what you're talking about: "There is evidence that children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude." and i just balanced the section out with some other stuff. if jmh wants to merge it with the section above "neurological differences" he can now. ~[[kinda]] 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

there. ~[[kinda]] 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

good job! -Jmh123 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I wont restore the weasel tag for now, but would like to see some other talk page input before we remove the NPOV tag, SqueakBox 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the weasel tag does belong, but I'll leave it out. However, I do not support removing the NPOV tag...RalphLender^talk 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Def. leave the POV tag up there. DPeterson^talk 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

how could this article be neutralized?

all we have is vague complaints, so--suggestions? ~[[kinda]] 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the disputes was over the existence of a separate 'positive' section. This appears now to be resolved. -Jmh123 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my mistakes. ~[[kinda]] 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure all editors agree with that. DPeterson^talk 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

what? ~[[kinda]] 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

perceptions of child sexual abuse

squeakbox was interested in this, so i may or may not write it. somebody should write it. here's my suggested sources:

• Bornstein et al. (2007). "Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: Lay perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse," Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issue 4. (bbornstein2@unl.edu; the author might send you a copy)
• Neuilly, M., & Zgoba, K. (2006). Assessing the Possibility of a Pedophilia Panic and Contagion Effect Between France and the United States

for a historical perspective, this website has an pretty complete bibliography. ~[[kinda]] 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hello wall, it's me again.

perhaps i'm impatient but we don't seem to be making much progress in reaching a version of this article we can agree on. are we waiting for something, or is the plan to just leave the tag on there for eternity? i'm not sure what i should do since there's very little reasonable imput on what needs to be done from the people who want to keep the tag. ~[[kinda]] 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

With controversial articles and editors who will not pledge to keep a non-NPOV, that tag will probably remain up. Even if all current editors pledged to remain NPOV, there is a constant stream of new editors and many of them are likely to not hold tightly to NPOV. There's also the problem of what I think is a neutral point of view is not always the same as what you think is a neutral point of view. Should we add the Template:Controversial tag? Please discuss before just adding it. Dfpc 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These articles are exhausting and I for one still find this one amongst others to be not near the NPOV that I would like to see, so while I am not waiting for anything I do see this as a work in process. I think we need to build the consensus to get an article that reflects current views about child sexual abuse in our moderrn world, SqueakBox 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For now the tag, and we could add the controversial tag too, should remain. There is a lot to be done to fix this article and it will just take time.

I agree with the above. RalphLender^talk 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive_and_consensual_cases

Someone bring that part back. That's a very important part. 80.167.84.86

I have to disagree. RalphLender^talk 21:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that children are unable to consent to sexual relations with adults is incorporated into the majority of legal systems in the world and absolutely believed by the majority of people in the world. Its an extreme minority belief that children can consent to sexual relations with adults and thus fails notability and thus has no place in this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that it is illegal underscores the point that there cannot be consent by a minor for sexual relations with an adult. This concept is further enshrined in law in many other areas, including informed consent to treatment (parents not children must sign). DPeterson^talk 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox and DPeterson: Until the late 20th century, in much of the United States and in some other countries, gay men were incapable of consenting to sex with other men and white women were incapable of consenting to marriage with a black man. Anti-gay-sex laws still exist in some countries. Would 1950s-era Wikipedia editors cite the law as grounds to be non-NPOV on such issues? Maybe they would, and maybe the community consensus would back them up, but it would still be non-NPOV. If you are going to claim "extreme minority" as reason to not allow certain material and are claiming your position is "representative" of the masses, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are taking a non-neutral position. By the way, this isn't the only topic where "extreme minority" positions are not well-tolerated at Wikipedia. I haven't researched it but I assume that non-orthodox theories of 9/11, the JFK assassination, and similar events receive the same could shoulder treatment in the "main" articles about those subjects. The editors of those articles should also admit that their POV reflects the masses and is not necessarily neutral. Dfpc 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no human being is totally neutral. As Wikipedia editors we should realize this and most or all of the time put our personal biases behind us. It's a rare editor that is 100% successful at maintaining a NPOV all the time. Dfpc 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is irrelevanmt. We've actually made progress and realised that adults do consent to sex. The idea that children should be forced to consent to sex merely to satisfy the perversions of a tiny minority of trollish adults will never be accepted in a civilised society. I absolutely do not accept I am not taking a neutral stance, indeed that is my only interest in this set of articles, SqueakBox 22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues should be evaluated on facts...not what might be. Even if we accept Dfpc's argument, which I do not, it is still irrelevant as sex between adults and children is now illegal and that is the basis for stating there are no positive aspects...If we accept Dfpc's arguement, then at some point in the distant future, children can be said to be able to consent to having sex with adults, the article can be edited at that point....For now, children cannot consent to having sex with adults, it is illegal and not a postive thing. DPeterson^talk 22:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These are excellent points that can be written about in the legal section where it belongs. Nandaba Naota 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You all deleted it, simply because you didn't like the facts said in it. That's not a constructive way to edit. bring it back. 80.167.84.86 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was merged into the "effects" section as proposed. To have a separate "positive" section implied advocacy. No "facts" have been deleted. Read the discussion on this above, please. -Jmh123 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was merged without consensus and information was removed in the process. Nandaba Naota 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Was it without connsensus. There certainly was no consensus to keep it. What information got lost? SqueakBox 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was without consensus and should had been discussed first, as stated in earlier discussion. Interview material was "lost" in the process. Nandaba Naota 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed and agreed upon by the participating editors. The change was effected by User:kinda0. The material you reinserted was not lost. It was determined to be anecdotal. We could counterbalance this with anecdotes of less pleasant experiences of child sexual abuse, but my opinion is that we stick to research here and not story-telling. -Jmh123 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The removed text is research material and source for it was provided. Who ever claims otherwise simply doesn't know what he is talking about, which is evident when reading the source. Nandaba Naota 23:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

So, are you (Nandaba) supporting the addition of something like the following into the legal section?

Sexual relations between children and adults is illegal. As such, children cannot consent to sexual relationships and all such contact is illegal and by definition, abusive.

DPeterson^talk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok as long as it remains in the legal section and is not confused with other areas. Nandaba Naota 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

please attribute this circular argument to someone who has made it. (though i'd rather we find an argument that isn't so weak and tautological.) ~[[kinda]] 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good and I would like to see it in the opening, it would go some way then towards resolbving real POV concerns, SqueakBox 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Emancipated Minors

Removed false statement:

American age of consent laws may or may not apply to emancipated minors, particularly married or divorced individuals under the age of consent. Emancipated minors, including married or divorced teenagers, are legally adults. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case (Lawrence v. Texas) implies that adults have the right to sexual relations with other adults. Whether or not a 40 year old man having sex with an underaged divorced woman is legal is untested. Likewise, incest between emancipated minors and other adult family members is also legally untested.

In the states where emancipation is allowed, statutory rape and age of marriage laws still apply. An emancipated minor is not a status equal to that of adulthood. The laws are listed here: http://www.jlc.org/index.php/factsheets/emancipationus. Lawrence v. Texas has no bearing on sex with minors, and not having tested a law does not make the law of questionable application. ZeroZ 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, ZeroZ DPeterson^talk 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

original synthesis of facts?

Children may be the initiators of the sexual contact and aggressively seek it, as is shown in the following case involving a 12-year-old: It developed over time and was great. We became friends and I invited him over once when my parents weren’t home. I practically had to force sex on him because he was afraid about losing his job. Ended when I went away for the summer and he wasn’t a teacher at my school no more

this seems to be an original synethesis of facts, which Wikipedia:No original research discourages. as far as i know, rind does not use this case to argue that some children aggresively seek sex. ~[[kinda]] 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He does use this case, among others, and categorize it as "subject actively initiated and wanted it". Perhaps you can chance aggressive to actively if that pleases you. Nandaba Naota 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, you're right. i don't see why we should give so much weight to one anecdote though. in my opinion it would be better just to point out that that study classified several cases of sexual abuse as being initiated by the 'child' aged 12-17. (though that doesn't seem to belong in a section about effects...) ~[[kinda]] 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It offers insight on the character of these sexual contacts, since they are lesser known the need is greater here and thus allows the average reader to get more and better information. Nandaba Naota 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement does not belong for the reasons Kinda states. I have deleted it accordingly. DPeterson^talk 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As shown, the reason was invalid and the text should be restored. Nandaba Naota 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely does not belong here. Please can we concentrate on making this article more NPOV instead of making it less so, SqueakBox 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Nandaba Naota 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because children dont initiate sexual contact with adults, its just a ploy pro pedophile activists use to justify their crimes and as such has no place here, SqueakBox 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The information comes from a peer reviewed scientific study. Nandaba Naota 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It reflects an extreme minority POV and fails notability, besides if we want an NPOV article we are headed in the wrong direction with stuff like this, SqueakBox 22:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It reflects the current state of mainstream research and is well sourced. Nandaba Naota 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Are you seriouslty claiming that current mainstream child sexual abuse research basically says it is all the child's fault, because I think you are mistaken and you would need to source such a strange claim. Things need to be more than just well sourced for inclusion here. Try reading some policy (if you havent already), SqueakBox 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No one made such a claim, please only refer to the text in the article. Nandaba Naota 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have made sucha claim just above, SqueakBox 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Nandaba Naota 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is anecdotal. Anecdotal statements, regardless of source, do not, in my opinion, belong in a review of research. A single anecdote like this sticks out and creates the appearance of POV. -Jmh123 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Interviews are a well known and accepted method in research, the word anecdotal is very misplaced here and I have no idea who started it or why. The text provides a clear cut example of consensual cases and thus brings useful information on this topic for the reader. Since the negative effects are dominant, there cannot be an POV issue here in that regard. Nandaba Naota 23:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the POV. Why is there such reliance on a single researcher here? Rind is quoted extensively in service of a number of statements. If his conclusions are mainstream, one would expect others to have confirmed his results and supported his conclusions with further research. -Jmh123 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I could fill pages with only refences to other researchers if you want that, just let me know. I prefer to use as few sources as possible to keep the articles readable. Nandaba Naota 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages would be great, SqueakBox 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We have many, many references in this article. I wasn't aware of an effort to limit sources. -23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Nandaba Naota 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rind is controversial and contested. Extensive use of this is really off point and POV. Furthermore, the use of annecdotes is not useful to support statements. I still feel strongly, as other editors do, that this should NOT be in the article. If someone feels strongly otherwise, I'd suggest we conduct an informal poll to see what consensus exists. DPeterson^talk 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This study has not been in any controversy or been contested. The term anecdote is not applied to interviews in research, and should not be used here as well, its is commonly used for information gathered with a non scientific method. Unless any valid argument arises, the text should be included. Nandaba Naota 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you will see that it is, infact, a disputed study. A quote of one subject is, by definition, an anecdote. It is not empirical. Yes, it is a non-scientific method and, therefore, of little or no value in making a point, except a POV point. Again, most editors DO NOT want the maerial included...but if you dispute that, hold an informal poll to see what the consensus is on this. DPeterson^talk 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking about the 1998 study, this is an entirely different one. At any rate, it meets the criteria for inclusion so this is not really an issue. Consensus is not decided by vote, wikipedia is clear on this. Nandaba Naota 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are just wrong here. However, Wikipedia DOES run on consensus. If you disagree, hold an informal poll and see where your arguments stand. So far your arguments have convinced no one. DPeterson^talk 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are just wrong here. Voting won't do much good since you have more friends here due to being an editor longer. Voting to decide facts is and remains a very flawed way of running things. Nandaba Naota 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant your position and argument are just wrong. However, informal polls, while not binding, are useful for developing consensus. However if you don't want to do that, you can always file an RfC or RfM. Otherwise, your position will have to remain a minority view that won't be reflected in the article as consensus does rule here. DPeterson^talk 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Voting has a tendency to become, Friendsgroup1 vs Friendsgroup2 and result in nothing. If you wanto remove well sourced material then all you need is a good reason. Provide one and I will listen. Nandaba Naota 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about friendships; it's about trying to reach a consensus on important issues, which is hard to do when people register at Wikipedia one day, miraculously born pros at how Wikipedia works, and immediately start demanding things be the way they want them to be regardless of previous agreements. I don't believe that anecdote belongs in this entry. We agreed to leave it out, and then you appeared and put it back in, and are now rigorously insisting that it remain. You wonder why people are frustrated? -Jmh123 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if there is a valid argument to remove the text then I'm all ears. Nandaba Naota 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I presented my opinion already. It's anecdotal and as the single anecdote in the entry it creates a biased perspective. All editors involved at that time were able to reach an agreement about this involving a larger conflict over the effects/positive effects section. The change was made by kinda. You registered and unilaterally overruled that agreement. You do not get to decide what is valid all by yourself, although you are certainly acting as if this is the case. -Jmh123 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not anecdotal. The definition of anecdotal: "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" This is not the case here and thus the word does not apply. So you're argument is based on a fundamental flaw, and thus is invalid. That is why I am waiting for a real reason to remove it (if there is any). Nandaba Naota 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two problems with the statement. First, without further details, the statement could be interpreted to mean that this happens somewhat frequently, which seems unlikely to me. How often does it occur? Twice in the past 10 years? Rather than just say "Children may be the initiators," if it were left in, it might be better to add "in very rare circumstances."

Second, and more importantly, the statement could be taken to suggest that child sexual abuse is somehow justified because it was initiated by the child. That's simply not the case. What exactly is the point of adding it? I'm sure there are some cases where a rape victim flirted with the rapist beforehand. So what? That doesn't change the fact that it's rape. It doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to add this sort of thing here. StokerAce 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. It does not matter even a little bit if a child "initiates" sexual behavior. The problem is the adult's (or much older child's) behavior. Children are by our reckoning incapable of informed consent which is the basis of individual freedom. Abuse is the leveraging of a power imbalance to the disadvantage of another. The lack of informed consent is the power imbalance. The negative impact on children's normal development, and therefore to many other outcomes bearing directly on individual welfare is the disadvantage. Maybe a few of these basic concepts should preface the article.Vendrov 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

To use the latest tag you need to fill atleast one criteria (which is does not at this point):

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Nandaba Naota 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least one of those criteria has been met and I didnt use the disputed tag but the totally disputed tag, SqueakBox 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one and what evidence do you have? Nandaba Naota 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a tag that does reflect the controversial and contested nature of material in the article. It must remain. DPeterson^talk 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular tag requires some criteria to be filled, since this is not the case, it should be replaced with the ordinary NPOV-tag. Nandaba Naota 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dispute this assertion, I suggest you hold an informal poll as most editors here seem to disagree with you. DPeterson^talk 01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, if you could fill one criteria then you would had already done so, voting about it won't change that fact. Nandaba Naota 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you dispute the conensus here, you can always file an RfC or RfM to resolve the dispute....but your view does not represent consensus and so won't be reflected in the article. DPeterson^talk 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is built together, you can't have consensus without me, and I can't have consensus without you. Nandaba Naota 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not so. If you read the article on consensus, one editor cannot hold hostage consensus....it means a preponderance of editors. DPeterson^talk 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a voting system either, it's about working toward agreements, and this should be done by arguments rather than deciding it by who can gather the most friends to vote for him. Nandaba Naota 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Questioning this statement

"The editors who published the critique of the Rind et al. study argued that it had little merit but published it anyway to keep the debate inside the scientific community."[33] The reference is to McNally, R. J. (2003). Remembering Trauma. The Belknap press of Harvard University press, p. 25. No indication is given as to the context of this statement. It sounds gossipy and unprofessional. Is it something that was said to someone in the hallway at a conference, on the phone, by e-mail, or was it published in a scientific study? If the latter, why isn't the study quoted rather than this book? Or is this simply the opinion of McNally, in which case the statement as written is inaccurate and misleading. The latter part of the statement makes no sense. As I understand it, the debate went beyond the scientific community very rapidly. And why publish a poor study for this reason when a poor study wouldn't have silenced critics anyway? Can this be clarified please? -Jmh123 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the statement was apparently published in "Publication of Rind et al. (1998). The editors' perspective." (2002)

citing this, mcnally says: "Even the editors who published the critiques agreed that the critiques had little merit. But the wisdom of their publishing them was unassailable; it is better to have scientific disputes aired in the professional literature than in the halls of Congress." ~[[kinda]] 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can perhaps be reformulated slightly, I will do so tomorrow. Nandaba Naota 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We should investigate "Remembering Trauma revisited - Nature Medicine9, 1251−1252; 2003)" before we rely too heavily on that source. Does anyone have access to Nature? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have access to this. Pertinent here:

McNally bemoans the (remarkably) unanimous Congressional condemnation of the Bruce Rind meta-analysis, which claims no evidence of ill effects of childhood sexual abuse, as “perhaps the most egregious example of (perceived) advocacy trumping science”. But he does not mention that Psychological Bulletin published two full-length methodological criticisms of the Rind paper. The problem with that meta-analysis is not just its conclusions, but its assumptions and methods: deficient science, not politics.

Another quote that isn't directly relevant, but:

McNally also states, startlingly, that “the low base rate of HIV infection in the general population means that a positive HIV test will almost always be wrong”. Huh?

There's also an angry response from McNally in a later issue. This is obviously an area of controversy. So we currently have in this entry Rind's study and a statement that Rind is controversial, followed by a statement demeaning Rind's critics, and we could now add another statement criticizing those who demean Rind's critics, or could we perhaps stick with the simple--"Rind said," "his study is controversial" and leave out the back room gossip and bickerfest? -Jmh123 15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that a (bad) amateur wrote that text. Both the quotes are strange, the first has the problem that it is incorrect in both the interpretation of Rind and also ignores the fact that McNally do write about the criticism.

The other text is written by someone who does not understand base rates. For example, if you have a test which is correct 99 times of hundred. You get one false positive for every 100 tests. If the base rate of what you seek is one a million, then if you choose random persons, then a positive will almost always be wrong. This is basically what McNally is saying and its just very simple math.

I wouldn't call this controversy, just someone who lacks basic understanding of the subject. Nandaba Naota 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His point is that the population of people taking HIV tests is not random: "Sure, even a low false-positive rate can produce many errors in a large uninfected population. But that is not how the test is used. The test will not “almost always be wrong,” because it is not used as a population screen, but among people with elevated risk." -Jmh123 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the quote looks accurate to me. Rind is not a study that should get much, if any weight in this article. JonesRD_talk 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you a) have not read Rind study b) not read McNally's book and c) do not understand base rates. Nandaba Naota 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has access to off line books but that doesnt strengthen the position of anyone wanting to insert them. I agree with JonesRD, SqueakBox 16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing text you never have read is just bad by any standard. Nandaba Naota 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I have put tags on to lessen pov and those who are increasing pov with a misguided defence of pedophile criminals, can you please back off? We need an NPOV article not a pro pedophile rant, SqueakBox 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

you have candidly admitted that you're here to ensure this article reflects your personal pov. i, on the other hand, want this article to include all relevant and notable information for people interested in learning about child sexual abuse--the information i add is not necessary in accord with my OWN opinion. please stop being destructive in your self-admitted pov pushing. ~[[kinda]] 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont wish it to reflect my POV at all, I wish it to reflect NPOV. This isnt a subject I have strong POVs about anyway, other than the normal ones almost everybody has and that is NPOV, SqueakBox 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims of POV and NPOV don't have much weight. What matters is the product. Let's just make sure our edits are neutral. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourced material should not be removed without reason

Why was the following removed? [1]

Nandaba Naota 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

POV considerations, we arent here to promote the "wonders" of child sexual abuse! SqueakBox 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with that material is that we are presented with a string of studies all in service of the same idea, without any sense of the nature of each individual study or how each individual study supposedly supports this idea. And, of course, two cites to Rind. Frankly, I'm getting very skeptical about him just because he is referred to again and again in service of every idea that promotes the notion that having sex with adults does not harm children.

If we're going to look into additional research, I am interested in the earlier discussion of gender differences, age differences, and so forth. I think it's hard to make blanket statements about child sexual abuse causing no harm due to the many variables involved, few of which have been addressed in this entry. -Jmh123 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many studies, I have been trying to keep down the number to make the article readable for the average user and I agree that we can reduce the numbers here. But removing the text completely is not the way. It's not that child sexual abuse does not cause harm, in fact, in the majority of cases it is associated with harm, but basically *all* research also shows that many show no harm. And this is what the text claim (which is correct). Nandaba Naota 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On rind, he is being cited often because his research is the best in the field, but all cites of Rind could be replaced since he uses mainstream research. I don't think that most people actually understand the criticism since it is on the finer details of the meta-analytic method (which is not understandable for non-experts). In fact, Rind should be quoted more since his study has gone through all possible tests and managed to keep credibility and still be frequently cited in professional literature. You won't find any research that is more tested than this. Nandaba Naota 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we should include stuff only understandable by experts. can you source your claim Rind's research is the best in the field, SqueakBox 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we will have to remove all research we have used so far. His research have been published in the most prestigious journal in the world, which is proof enough. Nandaba Naota 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sdaying our readwers need to understand the research but they do need toi understand the article. Being published in the ebst journals and having the best research are nott he same thing at all. What confususe me is when one expert disappears another miraculously appears, SqueakBox 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that is one of many reasons not to include the criticism of the Rind study since it goes beyond normal understanding (not to mention that the criticism has been debunked since long ago). Nandaba Naota 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously a flawed, POV, and contested small thing..it should not even be in this article, but if it is, then material must also be included so the lay-reader can evaluate what weight to give this material. DPeterson^talk 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, its quite debated issue and many researchers have questioned the validity of the CSA term in the way its used today. Read the source if you are in doubt. Nandaba Naota 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

squeakbox said "pages would be great" in regard to sources. sorry if i went overboard. ~[[kinda]] 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nandaba Naota, to say that Rind's research is the "best in the field" is simply an opinion. Yes, his research was published in a prestigious journal; studies contradicting his were published in the same journal. Studies contradicting his conclusions continue to appear in respected publications. Nandaba Naota, I most emphatically did not say there are too many studies. I said eleven citations appended to one sentence are not helpful, as we learn nothing specific about those works cited. I also said that Rind is carrying a disproportionate weight in this entry and it would be helpful when supporting a point if citations were made (including specifics regarding those citations) to different studies for a change.

As I've said before, it isn't up to Wikipedia to change social standards, or to pronounce that a minority opinion ought to be mainstream. To imply that all psychologists, or even a majority of psychologists, since Rind's research was published, now believe that having sex with adults will not harm children is simply inaccurate. -Jmh123 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

replacing the argument in the law section

the argument in the law section is unsourced and ridiculously illogical, so i'm going to replace it. here's my suggestion:

Perhaps the best known argument for prohibiting child sexual abuse was put forward by Finkelhor (1979). He argued that, because prepubescent children are ignorant of the mechanics and social aspects of sexuality, they cannot give informed consent since they do not understand what they are consenting to. (Finkelhor, D. (1979). What's wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problems of child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49 (2), 692-697)

additions? ~[[kinda]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument is also ridiculously illogical but at least its sourced. We should add some of the criticism of this though, if it is included.

The counter argument is summed up well here:

Finkelhor (1979, 1984) many years ago already articulated the posi-tions Schmidt is currently espousing. But the weakness of his articulation is instructive, as it points to the problem of trying to be a scientist and a moralist simultaneously. Like Schmidt, Finkelhor argued that harm is not needed to establish the immorality and unacceptability of adult–child sex. Instead, Finkelhor continued, the unacceptability is based on the child’s inability to consent, because he does not know what he is getting into and he cannot say no. A critic then complained that, if it is true that children cannot make judgments about sex, how can they judge among rival claims of the various religious sects (e.g., agree with an adult to be taken to one church rather than another or none at all)?. Finkelhor responded that it is different with sex, because sex is more likely to be harmful. His argument is circular–the issue falls back to harm, even though harm is claimed to be unessential to the point. -- Nandaba Naota 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, what is the source of that? ~[[kinda]] 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets remember science is but one aspect of this article, valuable but shouldnt be allowed to dominate. And that children cannot consent to sex with adults is NPOV and to argue the extreme minority view that they can isnt, SqueakBox 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

following your perspective, our article on marijuana should claim that it causes cancer and kills brain cells. ~[[kinda]] 20:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro cannabis activism isnt an extreme minority belief (nor is there an article on the subject I might add), SqueakBox 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, if we include Finkelhors argument we should include the counterarguments as well. Nandaba Naota 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse is illegal...sexual relations between an adult and a child are illegal. Children cannot consent to sex...These are facts and can be simply stated as such. DPeterson^talk 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the consent issue is far more complex than that since it depends on which definitions you use and which countries you look at and so forth. 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Nandaba Naota 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"according to some"

why was this added? how is the controversy over this even deniable? there's a reason so many studies now control for family environment, you know... ~[[kinda]] 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's weasel words as well and should not be included for that reason as well as the one kinda mentioned. Nandaba Naota 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is some, not a couple or many. Furthermore, please do not delete material that has been added with some support here. Child sexual abuse is illegal and that statement can stay. The study I referenced as more current is more current. The other study did not "find" it suggested. There was no proof...that requires an experiment. They found an association. DPeterson^talk 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong here. This is a very debated issue and do I really need to remind you that John Briere and other top researchers have addressed this particular issue many times over the years? Nandaba Naota 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

implying that rind's research has been replaced by contradictory work is misleading. the ideas his studies support survive in science today, some recent studies support his findings, and some of the research contrary to them were published prior to 1998.

the only possible reason for denying a controversy exists is ignorance.

they found that the effects were not explained by any of the family background factors they tested for. they were quite thorough in this.

we already say child sexual abuse is illegal. we don't need to say it three times and combine it with some absurd leaps of logic. ~[[kinda]] 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

We are not here to promote pedophile activism. Can the people who are trying to do so please stop,SqueakBox 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

shut up, [censored]. can the people who don't know anything about child sexual abuse and mistake the p[romotion of mainstream science for "pedophile activism" please leave or at least bother to learn mainstream science before bullshitting about it? ~[[kinda]] 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Calling me an idiot isnt a way to get your POV across on wikipedia, quite the opposite. I argue that it is pedophiles know nothing about this subject, SqueakBox 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your {Kinda} comments are offensive and are Personal Attacks. Consider this a friendly reminder and please stop and focus on the issues being discussed, not the editors.DPeterson^talk 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

if you didn't notice, the only time i don't focus on the content is when squeakbox accuses others of being pro-pedophile activists. why don't you tell him to shut up instead of me? ~[[kinda]] 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Child sexual abuse: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Its fair to assunme that people who persistently add pro pedophile material to wikipedia and attack those who want NPOV are pro pedophile activists, SqueakBox 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

um, most of the material i've added has supported the contention that child sexual abuse is linked independently to negative effects. this is my personal POV. i just don't support censoring opinions contrary to that, unlike you. i guess that makes me a "pro pedophile activist?" ~[[kinda]] 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucky you. And what was calling me an idiot based on? that anti pedophile activists are idiots cos they just dont understand? SqueakBox 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

it was based on your total ignorant of the literature. ~[[kinda]] 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your perception, SqueakBox 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No point denying it, just give it up. Nandaba Naota 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material

I deleted the following from the intro as I don't think it belongs there. Maybe other editors can comment on if it belongs at all, and if so, where:

The term have been criticized for implicating negative effects although empirical research have shown that this is not always the case. The use of negative terminology can have a negative biasing effect on how adult-nonadult sexual contacts is perceived.

DPeterson^talk 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to explain why... "I don't think it belongs there" just isn't enough to remove material. Nandaba Naota 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment and lets see what other editors think. DPeterson^talk 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting stuff without discussing it first, it only leads to edit wars. Nandaba Naota 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, I just made an edit that didnt ec and it turns out DPetersen made the exact same edit, SqueakBox 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On checking some of the material that was deleted I agree that it contains dubious assertions. In one case there's a verbatim quote that does not appear in the linked source, Wakefield and Underwager. In other cases assertions appear to be promoted that don't reflect the overall findings of the sources. This section seems intended to prove a point rather than to neutrally summarize sources. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This applies to the whole article if we use the same reasoning. Nandaba Naota 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are aware of another verbatim quote that is mis-sourced then please bring that to the attention of editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring while wrongly accusing others of doing so. It looks like you are trying to manipulate wiki[pedia rules to your advantage but wikipedia isnt a supporter of pedophilia or gaming the system, SqueakBox 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well lying wont help nor will wikilawyering nor will anything else that is purely to support your POV that child sexual abuse is great, SqueakBox 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Where? SqueakBox 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused a fellow editor of lying. Nandaba Naota 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of material deleted without proper reason

SqueakBox just deleted a large chunk of text: [2] with no clear reason as to why. This must stop, you can't just remove things like that. Nandaba Naota 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the material should be restored, per arguments already made. squeakbox/dpeterson are the ones who need to discuss it on the talk page. ~[[kinda]] 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You may need to assist in these matters. (They have used this tecnique before in order to make oponents restore more than 3 times to get them blocked). Nandaba Naota 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you know about that? Making bad faith false claims of gaming the system re Voice of Britain are out of processs and clearly not true, please desist, SqueakBox 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed above. DPeterson^talk 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Radical" idea

How about we blank the article and start over. This time we plan everything very carefully and base every decision on peer reviewed research. A work group with 4 serious editors would suffice.

Make new version

• Nandaba Naota 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure

Keep current version

Not relevant, as you arent giving any decent options. We could restart and make sure we get an NPOV article based on ad populum. 4 serious editors could be me, Will, DPetersen and JonesRD but actually this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit so your proposal is a non starter, SqueakBox 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

KEEP This article is needing work, but has much in in its favor. However, if you wish to create a new article on your talk page, I'd look at it as a proposal. DPeterson^talk 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This article is the product of consensus. The proposer hasn't given any specific reasons why this article should be stubbed. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. That doesn't make sense. Come up with an outline for the changes you want to make and post a link to a version of it (i.e., User:Nandaba Naota/CSA-Newversion). Joie de Vivre 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. A lot of work has gone into this version. I don't believe a "new" version under the circumstances we're working under here would be an improvement. -Jmh123 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I and anothe editor (Will Beback) requested and were granted page protection on this page because of Nandaba's edits. I continue to have concerns regarding Nandaba's Personal Attacks, for example, toward SqueakBox. DPeterson^talk 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, SqueakBox 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this will keep DPeterson and SqueakBox from continuing to violate the 3RR rule. Nandaba Naota 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, SqueakBox 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked as a troll account, page is now unprotected. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! DPeterson^talk 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

law

"Sexual relations between children and adults is illegal. As such, children cannot consent to sexual relationships and all such contact is illegal and by definition, abusive."

problems with this: sexual contact is illegal because they cannot give informed consent, rather than they can't give informed consent because sexual contact is illegal. a prepubescent child's incapacity to give informed consent is a proposition established through logic, not an axiom. this argument is an unsourced mockery of the argument against child sexual abuse, so i'm going to replace with it finkelhor's well-known opinions. ~[[kinda]] 18:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the line should remain. Sexual conduct is illegal NOT ONLY because of the informed consent issue. It is illegal because it is repugant to the vast majority of people. DPeterson^talk 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Finkelhor said nor do I know what you mean by "argument against child sexual abuse." I do know that the legality of an action as determined by the law is a separate concept from why the people wanted the law passed. --Gbleem 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

sex act sentence

"Pedophilia is a term often used to describe the acts of perpetrators and is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]." This is a confusing sentence. Could someone rewrite it? --Gbleem 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten as "Pedophilia, a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2], is a term often used colloquially to denote acts of child sexual abuse." --Askild 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the colloquial definition I don't think it refers to the individual acts but the practice. Maybe? In reference to the diagnosis it's not clear if we are saying it's a diagnosis for the adult or a diagnosis for the child, particularly in context to the discussion of psychiatric damage in this article. --Gbleem 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "The psychiatric term pedophilia is often used colloquially to mean the practice of sexually abusing children." That still doesn't sound right though. --Gbleem 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]; the term pedophile is often used colloquially to denote a child sexual abuser"? Herostratus 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Best! I'll make the change. RalphLender^talk 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another section that needs some work

I find the section on "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings" problematic. The first couple of sentences are not well-written at all. In the second two paragraphs there's a lot of appealing to the ancients, and I know from my own research in another field that ideas about what "archaic cultures" did are often speculative. A couple of the sources in the second paragraph--globalgayz and glbtq are not scientific sources. There's a list of cultural practices in the second paragraph, but only a few can be related to child sexual abuse. I understand the point of making a statement about culture relativism, but in my opinion this section is rather poorly written and vague. -Jmh123 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make a suggestion for comment below...I've created a section in which a proposal can be floated. DPeterson^talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of section, "Variation in cultural practices and norms"

There is no consensus as to whether past or present cultural practices in Western or non-Western societies can be defined as abusing either general universalistic human rights or special universalistic rights of minors. Cultural relativists argue that it is not right to condemn the practices of other cultures, even when repugnant to one's own; others may point to slavery as an example of a cultural norm of the pre-Civil War American South that was nearly universally rejected by others.

Some of the sexual or sex-related practices sanctioned by cultural norms in different cultures include cutting and bleeding of the genitals, female genital cutting, circumcision (of males), castration, infibulation, sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece, sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult males in feudal Japan, and adult-child sexual relations in a variety of tribal cultures.

Is cultural universalist an accepted term or just descriptive? Relations between boys and adult males were not limited to monks in feudal Japan. How often it was coerced is another question perhaps not relevant here. I don't know what the impoverished cultures sentence is referring to, and there is no citation. Thailand is a country that comes to mind in this regard, but it isn't clear how the culture as a whole regards this practice. For now, I've left that sentence out, pending a citation or addition. The Green article can be found here: [3]. His list looks like a hodge-podge of anthropological reports of varying rates of reliability. The article itself is on the topic of DSM classifications. I've included an all-purpose phrase to hopefully cover Green. I also changed the section title. -Jmh123 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not support the proposed change. RalphLender^talk 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about sexual abuse and DSM issues, I'd opt to delete the entire section. I will make that proposal now, below. RalphLender^talk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of above section

I propose that the entire section be deleted. Please indicate your support or opposition belowRalphLender^talk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. Not sure that as written it says much of relevance. -Jmh123 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's delete it. DPeterson^talk 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete. We are getting too far afield here. It's beyond what this article can reasonably address. Herostratus 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Jmh123 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. ZeroZ 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress! RalphLender^talk 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Something missing

There's nothing here about the physical effects of child sexual abuse. I changed the title of the "effects" section to psychological effects, as that is the topic of that section. I believe an additional "physical effects" section would be appropriate. -Jmh123 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the section describes the psychological effects. I don't know that a section on physical effects is necessary...I wonder what other editors think??? RalphLender^talk 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in a Physical Effects section. But is someone has a compelling argument I'll change my mind. DPeterson^talk 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are many variables: age, degree of force, type of sexual activity and so forth. Perhaps there's too much potential for contention or abuse from those who want to minimize all negative effects, but child sexual abuse can cause bodily harm and the entry doesn't state that. Another route to take would be to change the title back to "effects" and begin with a short statement saying something along the lines of, "Depending on age, size, and degree of force, sexual activity between children and adults may cause infection, sexually transmitted diseases, internal lacerations, damage to internal organs, or, in extreme cases, death. Psychological damage may occur even when physical effects are absent." And then continue with psychological effects. -Jmh123 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I like that. It is succint and clear. I support your (Jmh123) proposal. DPeterson^talk 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'm going to go back and rephrase this slightly. Check to see if it's OK with you. -Jmh123 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In googling this, I discovered some research that indicates that the degree of physical damage correlates with severity of psychological damage, but I don't feel comfortable including studies myself without a comprehensive knowledge of the literature on this subject. Just a suggestion for anyone else who is interested. -Jmh123 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. What did you google? I'll look at the citations. BTW, I like what you did. Very nice work. DPeterson^talk 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This all looks positive, SqueakBox 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DPeterson^talk, I googled "'physical effects' of child sexual abuse" with the quotes around only "physical effects" in the search. This [4] was a long and interesting Ph.D. research proposal that has some references which could possibly of use: "The use of physical force during CSA incidents (Finkelhor, 1979; Fromuth, 1986; Herman et al., 1986; Russell, 1983, 1984), and a longer duration and greater frequency of CSA are also associated with poorer psychological and sexual outcomes in adulthood (Bifulco et al., 1991; Binder, McNiel, & Goldstone, 1994; Briere & Runtz, 1988b; Herman et al., 1986)." Adult sexual dysfunctions are another effect the entry doesn't yet cover. -Jmh123 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The following may be useful:

• Penelope K. Trickett & Frank W. Putnam, "Developmental Consequences of Child Sexual Abuse," in VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY (Am. Psychological Ass’n, 1998) (longitudinal studies of sexually abused children showed high incidence of abnormalities in development. These abnormalities resulted in greater levels of emotional stress, greater risk for later behavioral and psychological problems [in particular anxiety disorders, inappropriate sexual behavior, and delinquency], poorer educational achievement, and poorer career achievement, in comparison to control group of nonabused children);
• Terri L. Messman-Moore & Patricia J. Long, "Child Sexual Abuse and Revictimization in the Form of Adult Sexual Abuse, Adult Physical Abuse, and Adult Psychological Maltreatment," 15 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 489(2000). (Abuse during childhood puts people at a higher risk of being victims of crime in adulthood [particularly of rape, battery, and intimate violence]);
• Cathy Widom & M. Ashley Ames, "Criminal Consequences of Childhood Sexual Victimization," 18 CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 303(1994) (Adults sexually abused during childhood are at higher risk of criminal arrest [particularly for drug abuse and prostitution], compared with those who were not so abused).

The changes of the last couple of days look really good. ZeroZ 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The line present is fine...I will add the above as references to support the stmts. RalphLender ^talk 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RalphLender ^talk, I think the other change you made sounds off simply because it's a no-brainer that the effects are going to vary from individual to individual and the effects will also be correlated with other causes, as children who are sexually abused often experience other forms of abuse. Let me try a variation and see what you think. -Jmh123 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking back I see I wrote almost exactly what was there before, but removed that word "though" which was carrying a sub-text. I think the real issue is that there is still an undue weight towards the "positive" side in the entire effects section, which can best be countered by adding additional studies, not just footnotes, but actual discussions of studies and their implications. I've made some suggestions, and the anon IP made some good ones that got lost in the VOB/Naota meltdown: [5] -Jmh123 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree...there seems undue weight in that area. RalphLender^talk 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Laws on CSA

I'm going to take a whack at rewriting the entire section and present it here for discussion within 48 hours. ZeroZ 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is up on my user page. -ZeroZ 12:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual mistreatment

My uncited/unverified edit to this page with the section "sexual mistreatment of minors" was removed due to exclusionism due to the page being controversial. What do you think of the separate definition of "sexual mistreatment" of minors that involves exposing minors to sexual material/pornography and corrupting their mental, emotional, and psychological state? Is this topic already covered in this article or in sexual abuse, does it merit an article/stub article of its own, etc.?

See my original edit. -- Wykypydya 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this to Talk as I requested. Can you find some citations to scientific research to support your edit? Try looking at this research proposal I linked above [6]. You may find a reference to this topic there. Also look at this book which is on line, full text, especially this chapter, beginning on this page: [7]. I think your idea would be a good addition to the topic, but we need to discuss where it would be placed too. -Jmh123 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

problems with the "Prohibited activities" section

There are a couple of inaccurate or misleading claims about what is generally prohibited under CSA laws in the "Prohibited activities" section such as:

"sexual contact between related adults and related children which is incest"

Sexual activity betweens two related adults is not a crime in all U.S. states. Also I believe their is often a legal distinction made between closely related adults/children and distantly related adults/children.

"inducing a child to touch his/her genitals or another's genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification"

If a parent advocates masturbation as a safe alternative to sexual activities for their teen/preteen son or daughter and their son or daughter later masturbates in private because of this then in a sense they "induced a child to touch his/her genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification" but unless I'm mistaken no U.S. state would consider that a crime. I believe the activity would need to take place in the presence of the adult. If the part about "for the purpose of sexual gratification" was meant to refer to the inducer's sexual gratification then that should be made clear. If no one expresses any reason why I shouldn't make changes to these two statements then I will go ahead and fix them. --Cab88 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you put your proposed changes here and then editors can comment on it? DPeterson^talk 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to change the sentences: to read:

• sexual contact between closely related children and in some jurisdictions related adults which is incest
• inducing a child to touch his/her genitals or another's genitals in one's presence for the purpose of sexual gratification"

Does the above rewrites seem satisfactory to everyone? --Cab88 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The second one is good, the first doesn't get the point across--makes it sound as if sex between closely related children is incest, but sex between children and closely related adults is in some jurisdictions not incest. What about:

• sexual contact between children and adults closely related to them, which is a form of incest -Jmh123 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In some U.S. States it is not illegal for closely related adults to have sex. It may still be incest but it is not illegal which is what I was trying to make clear. As DPeterson suggest below, I think the whole section should be rewritten and I'll wait for his/her rewrite proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I think I understand what you're saying. The thing is, the statement isn't meant to define incest. Does the addition in bold above address your question? I agree it's better to wait for the rewrite that's coming but I'm curious as to where we are not communicating. -Jmh123 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Prohibited Activities" is inaccurate, in that the language of many of the points only fuzzily reflects the relevant laws on the subject. Also, the format is problematic, as it suggests that the items included are an exhaustive list, or somehow more important as "types" of CSA. Absorbing the list into a more rigorous Laws section would be highly preferable. May I request that no decision be made on these items until I present the proposed section rewrite on the Laws section here tomorrow? With thanks, ZeroZ 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ZeroZ, that's a good idea. DPeterson^talk 10:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--that would be helpful. The writing is very awkward. -Jmh123 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for nothing ... but aren't we discussing child sexual abuse? From what I've read, it seems some of you are debating whether incest (sex between related adults) is illegal in some jurisdictions ... instead shouldn't we be discussing sex between a child and an older relative? Or for that matter what's the difference? Sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator... right? (I think) Viper2k6 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of child marriages

I recently added:

Nonetheless, many women are married before the age of 15, often to older men, without their consent, and with financial motivations: up to 20% in some nations and 50% in some regions. In some regions the arranged marriage of the Prophet Muhammed to a six-year-old girl, consummated at the age of nine,, is taken to illustrate the virtue of the practice.

In reference to a speedy revert I deleted a somewhat peripheral comment that the practice is vigorously defended, with reference to Submission (film) and murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, which admittedly is somewhat more relevant to my POV than to the article.

Nonetheless, the overall statement is very important. The article currently gives the clear impression throughout that child molestation has been universally marginalized and occurs only in a criminal context, when in reality it remains the law of the land, and of God, in many places. 204.186.20.137 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First, your comment was added to the head of the article, which is not an article on cross-cultural marriage practices, but on child sexual abuse. Presumably, if a culture permits child marriage, then within that culture, the practice is not regarded as child sexual abuse. Therefore your statement is not relevant to the article, and particularly in this location, which creates a misleading sense of the content of the article. Second, your comment does not contradict the statement, " Although these laws differ in detail, all set an age - typically falling somewhere between the typical onset of puberty and the age of majority - under which all sexual contact with adults is deemed abusive and illegal." This statement clearly states that the laws set an age under which etc etc. Clearly if a culture which permits a marriage such as the one you describe, then the age determined by that culture is met--and again, you are talking about sex within the context of a marriage, which is therefore legally sanctioned. Thirdly, Muhammed lived a long time ago; the reference pertains to current practices. Fourthly, your comment follows a statement on incest. None of the material you added is relevant to incest. -Jmh123 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

on this subject i am wondering if in these supposed countries that child molesting really is the law of the land or if like every where else they have an age of consent, that sex with who ever is illegal outside of marrige and if they have a legal marrital age. I do not believe that anybody can go around legally violating children's human right to a childhood, control over their own bodies or believe that a child can make informed consent. If they do not have child abuse laws they must have rape laws etc. I do not believe that in any country doing what you want to someone is allowed as 204.186.20.137 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) seems to imply Delighted eyes 02:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal - reasons for child sexual abuse

I'd like to propose we add a section that describes the reasons for child sexual abuse.

Although I don't have a source to provide, I believe it's safe to say sexual abuse isn't always perpetrated by pedophiles - those who are sexually attracted to children. It can also be due to marital problems, alcohol/drugs, a form of punishment, etc.

Although the "Regressed Offenders" section touches on this a little bit, it doesn't do so in great detail.

I think the distinction between "pedophile" and "child sex offender" should be noted - because as someone has stated in the article, the word "pedophile" has unfortunately become a colloquialism to refer to child sex offenders.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

As to the proposed section, I'm not aware of any scholarly sources to support this either. To add this, we'll have to have some. As to the distinction you mention, the text as written is an effort to note just that. If you feel that there is a better way, please submit an alternative here in Talk and get some feedback from others. Thanks! Oh, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. (See right above the box you write your comments in.) -Jmh123 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There would have to be sources that meet the Wikipedia standard of being reliable and verifiable. If you can provide that along with your proposal then it can be reviewed here by others. RalphLender^talk 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I found a few articles that give other reasons for sexual abuse, not related to pedophilia:

StopItNow.org

Scroll to "Causes of Child Sexual Assault"

Scroll to "But he's Married"

Two of the sources are from the same source (StopItNow.org), but it's worth a look. Let me know what you think. And thanks for reminding me to sign my name Jmh.

Viper2k6 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The first two sources are not scientific. Useful as the multitude of websites concerning these issues may be to some, we're trying hard here to stick to research, as it has been repeatedly suggested that there may be some disagreement between public perception and scientific findings. The middle source concludes that section with the following disclaimer:

To date there is a paucity of hard evidence to support either Finkelhor's model or the risk factors (Oates 1990). Oates believes that this can be used as an indication that child sexual abuse is a complicated phenomenon, with no simple solutions. Goddard and Carew (1993) contended that Finkelhor's model indicated more about how sexual abuse occurs rather than why it occurs. They argued that in order to understand sexual abuse, like other forms of child maltreatment, it is necessary to categorise and separate the various types of sexually abusive behaviour, given that different causative factors may be operating for each 'type' of abuse.

Sounds like a pretty complicated issue. There's been plenty of time to research Finkelhor's model since published. The Oates citation is to 1990, the other to 1993. Any researchers know of studies testing this? Let's make sure we get it right before adding anything. -Jmh123 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point, and I do agree with you. However, shouldn't we update related articles as well? For example:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch - "child sex offender, also called "child sex abuser", or "child molester" (the latter term being deprecated for scholarly use). Some child sex criminals are also paedophiles, but not necessarily. It is idiomatically common, but not scholarly, to call all such persons paedophiles."

Pedophilia - "Occurrence in child sex offenders" - "A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is, despite all medical definitions, commonly assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[21] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner),[38] much as adult rape can have non-sexual reasons"

I agree that all claims should be cited even if there is general consensus, however these claims already exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. NOT TO SAY that Wikipedia should be cited as a verifiable source lol, but I feel there should be consistency amongst articles related to child sexual abuse and pedophilia. What are your thoughts?

Viper2k6 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To sum of what I just said: It seems as though you're stating that all child sex offenders are pedophiles - which would mean there's no such thing as regressed/situational offenders. Hence why I thought we could give a list of other possible (non pedophilic related) motivations.

However, if you want solid academic research before posting such information, then it would only be logical to remove such unverified claims from other child sex related articles (the ones I listed above) - until we come across such research.

Viper2k6 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it alone for now and continue discussions. BTW, by definition, all child molesters/child sexual abusers are pedophiles per the DSM! DPeterson^talk 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

false. the dsm diagnosis requires the abuser continue their behavior for at least six months (and even then the dsm definition is clearly overbroad). ~[[kinda]] 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not false, you just added a minor detail. Regardless, molesting children is a mental illness per DSM and is also illegal and a crime. DPeterson^talk 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, a 'minor detail' that proves false your ignorant claim that all child molesters are pedophiles "per the dsm." and no, molesting children is definitely not a mental illness per anyone but you. a persistent pattern of molesting children may be indicative of a mental illness, though. ~[[kinda]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well not just DPetersen and that's even on wikipedia. "Molesting children is a mental illness" is the soft approach, the hard approach says they are all criminals, and as an NPOV encycloepdia we should say both are true, SqueakBox 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PROTIP: a mental illness is a deleterious mental health condition, not an action. ~[[kinda]] 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on illegal actions and mentally ill behavior, per DSM. DPeterson^talk 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm kinda new here ... but I don't think it takes a regular to say that this conversation has become completely derailed. I think it'd only be logical to start a new category if we're to debate whether actions alone can be used to diagnosis pedophilia......can we at least agree on that? Viper2k6 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks have been busy elsewhere. Please wait and see if your concerns are addressed by the forthcoming changes in the legal section, and, if not, then feel free to start a new category. -Jmh123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

quote

"Fear literally arises from the core of the brain, affecting all brain areas and their functions in rapidly expanding waves of neurchemical acticity...also important is a stress hormone called cortisol.", p. 64.

not only does this not explicitly support what it claims to, it appears to be speculative rather than empirical. i have never encountered any study supporting the claim made there in my research, and if a book just claims that rather than a study having found that, the statement should be either changed or removed, especially since empirical observations contradicts it. ~[[kinda]] 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked for the supporting quote and it has been provided. It adheres to the Wikipedia standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability and therefore is appropriate. If you think it is not, cite the specific Wiki policy or standard it violates. DPeterson^talk 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

the issue is that the quote DOES NOT support the statement. i am quite sure that NO study has ever found elevated cortisol in csa survivors. you have not provided support for your claim that "studies" have. ~[[kinda]] 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable and meets standards...unless you can provide another policy it violates, it stands. DPeterson^talk 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I recognize that I may be wrong, so let's see what other editors think and leave the article as it is untill we receive comments and build a consensus. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

isn\t there a policy against adding misinformation? you still haven't provided any evidence csa survivors have elevated cortisol. ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

quote provided...let's see what other editors say. DPeterson^talk 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

uhh.. the quote says cortisol is important. that's all. it does not support the statement. ~[[kinda]] 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

in fact i agree that cortisol is important in some way, seeing as csa victims are significantly _lacking_ in it in comparison to controls. it indicates that some part of the hpa axis has been damaged just as much as elevated cortisol. ~[[kinda]] 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should apply the same standards all around. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean that it is true, and I don't think Wikipedia policy makes that claim. Let's use our brains and investigate. Is the author of the book a reliable source on neurochemistry? What are his/her credentials? Is there science to support/negate the statement? And so on. -Jmh123 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

his speculation is theoretically reasonable, but none of the empirical research i have read supports it and some of it contradicts it. (though i do remember reading one study about [neglected?] orphans who were found to have elevated cortisol.) ~[[kinda]] 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Perry is a MD & Ph.D., (psychiatrist and psychologist) who has publised extensively about the effects of trauma on the brain and brain neuro-chemistry. He's treated the Branch Davidian kids and been called into many other prom cases. He has extensive research in this area, citations in his book. DPeterson^talk 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say whether cortisol is lower or higher; it just says it's important. Does Perry reference any studies? The statement to which the quote has been added, and which the footnote to Perry follows, says that "other studies have been found." Can we cite studies he refers to? -Jmh123 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumb questions: Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum? Is the following part of the same argument, or an alternative hypothesis? "The authors hypothesized that the development of brain regions which myelinate over decades (such as the corpus callosum and hippocampus) may be disturbed by stress, because stress hormones such as cortisol supress the final mitosis of granule cells and thereby the production of the oligodendrocytes and Schwann cells that form the myelin sheath.[59]" How much of the "Neurological differences" section is directly related to this cortisol issue? Part of the problem, to this lay reader, is that the information is not presented clearly. -Jmh123 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

cortisol is just involved in some explanations for the observed differences. "Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum?" more research is needed to answer this. ~[[kinda]] 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read [[8]] and read the text and read the citations on the website. That is enough for now. It is all verifiable and meets the wikipedia policy standards for inclusion...but if you disagree try an RfC. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

that page does not contain the word cortisol anywhere. and you're yet to give any verifiable study to support the statement. ~[[kinda]] 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the book and the page does have the work and quote...DPeterson^talk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]] [[13]] DPeterson^talk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be wrong and misleading but it should be included anyway, wikipedia does not claim to know the truth, it only speaks mirrors what other people say and beleive. If enough people beleive that the world is flat, then that will be the truth on wikipedia. Revolt against the modern world 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Rewrite of Laws Section

It's up. I'm still working on formatting citations. Please comment here. -ZeroZ 12:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. I have a question/concern about the line,

"Although the term pedophile is used colloquially to describe child sexual offenders, this is misleading, as not all child sexual offenders are principally sexually attracted to children, and not all pedophiles perpetrate child sexual abuse."

By DSM def., if the behavior has a 6-month hx, then the person is a pedophile. DPeterson^talk 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To speak to your point, actual sexual activity with a minor is not necessary to fulfill Criterion A:

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, OR behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children

Fantasies or urges by themselves, without any sexual activity would be sufficient to meet this criterion.

Even so, meeting Criterion A alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of pedophilia. The subject must also meet Criterion B: (The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.) and Criterion C: (The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.)

So, a 30 year-old person who had recurrent sexually arousing fantasies about a 15 year-old person for more than six months, and who was so distressed by the fantasies that s/he had *never* acted on them would fit the diagnosis. Because of this, legal professionals increasingly prefer to limit the use of the term "pedophile" to psychiatric discussions. They instead use "CSA perpetrator," "child sexual offender," or "predatory pedophile" when describing a person who actually performs sexual activities, since it is that behavior which is the focus for legal professionals. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another comment is that I think the introduction to the article should stay as it is with the inclusion of

Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]; the term pedophile is often used colloquially to denote a child sexual abuser. The assailants can be of either sex as can the victim. Child sexual abuse is illegal in all countries about which information is available.

DPeterson^talk 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a particular reason for wanting the pedophile definition in the intro? I really want to keep the terms for perpetrators all in one section ("Offender Terminology"), so as to bring out the distinction I discussed above. I limited the intro to a taxonomy of the term "child sexual abuse" to keep it relatively short. But to meet the concerns in your earlier comment, I have expanded the paragraph defining the term "pedophile" so as to clarify its use. Let me know what you think. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks very good--much more clear and cogent. Thanks for all the work. -Jmh123 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you, Jmh123. You, DPeterson, and the others have been doing a yeoman's job (several yeomen's jobs!) this past week. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since, by DSM def. most perps of child sexual abuse are pedophiles, it is prominent, and so I'd think that info belongs in the brief, summary, general intro. The three lines you suggest adding would be just fine.DPeterson^talk 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the terminology up to the Intro and you were right; it looks very good , I think. Since the definition is now up there in the intro, I removed the duplicative material from the "Offenders" section at the bottom of the article. BTW, the material on "regressed" and "fixated" offenders is unsourced, if we are keeping a task list. Cheers, ZeroZ 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there's no objection from other quarters, and any issues with DPeterson are now resolved, I think you can implement these excellent changes at any time. -Jmh123 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! -ZeroZ 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Effects" - question about one sentence

Under Effects (middle of third paragraph) it states:

Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual and adult psychopathology

Did the author mean to say "between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology"?

Viper2k6 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(From the Who Moved My Cheese Dept: "Effects" section is now titled "Effects of Child Sexual Abuse" and is located at section 2.1 of the article.) -ZeroZ 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Viper. -Jmh123 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re def.

I think this line may be inaccurate and should be removed:

Although the term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, this is inaccurate and confusing, because not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia, and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges.

for the following reasons:

1. A person convicted of child sexual abuse will generally meet the DSM criteria in all but a few very rare instances. 2. The convict will have engaged in activity involving secual activity 3. Age difference 4. Caused sign impairment on social functioning.

What do other editors think of changing this to:

The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, although not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges, child sexual abuse, the activity, is illegal and also a mental illness.

DPeterson^talk 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My preferred version would be similar to DPeterson's: The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, but not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia, and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges. I think the stark form actually carries more meaning than the extra words do. I think both of you make good points though; I just don't think "inaccurate and confusing" accomplishes the desired myth debunking. I would support more text on that topic that spells it out as you do in your rationale, ZeroZ. -Jmh123 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this...JonesRD_talk 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point is excellent; I'm revamping now (more below) -ZeroZ

personally i think a peadophile is a child sex offender, but even if it is classed as an illness how is it different. Delighted eyes 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT CHANGE

1. _

DO NOT SUPPORT CHANGE

1. It's my understanding that the typical child sex offender is situational - someone who (1) is horny, (2) has no character or impulse control, and (3) has control over a child such as access to their girlfriend's daughter or whatever. And the person is perfectly capable of enjoying relations with a grown woman, and so is not a pedophile. And is not mentally ill, unless one wants to hold that criminals in general are mentally ill. Herostratus 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case. Do you have any citations to support that statement? My experience is that child sex offenders have a history of molesting children long before being caught. DPeterson^talk 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1. My rationale is here, (begins six lines down from the top.) Also, this citation may be useful: Weinrott, M. and Saylor, M. Self-Report of Crimes Committed by Sex Offenders, 6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 286, 286-300 (1991) (In a study of sex offenders, intrafamilial child sexual offenders self-reported high degree of "crossover" sexual offenses, defined as rapes of non-related children and adult women). In other words, the relationship between the psychiatric diagnosis and the culpable criminal behavior is not one-to-one. To conflate them leads to the myth that if a person has adult relationships and doesn't hang around playgrounds in a raincoat, then that person is safe to have around the kids. That's the kind of myth it would be great to debunk here. -ZeroZ 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the suggestion above by "J" that what we need is more material...This is a complex issue and maybe a paragraph is needed instead of a line or two? What would you think about doing that...expand the material with the explainations you and I have written? DPeterson^talk 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, and Jmh123's point about avoiding adjectival description is well taken. I am going to rewrite that part of the intro now and add in the citation from our explanatory material. -ZeroZ03:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; see my comments below, at section entitled "Intro". -ZeroZ 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another line to be deleted

This line:

The relationship between child sexual abuse and its attributed symptoms is contested,[30][45][46][47][48] because child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment.[49]

may not be accurate. The last study, #49, does 'not' reach the conclusion that, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." DPeterson^talk 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I prpose deleting this line. What do others think? DPeterson^talk 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, definitely. -ZeroZ 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm tempted to start a new section to do this, but that might be too much. Zero, the work you've done is fantastic! -Jmh123 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK...BTW, I don't mean to imply in any way, shape, or form, that I don't like the amazing work ZeroZ has done here...It is great. Now that the article is in better shape and we can focus more, I am finding a point or two that we might want to futher clarify. DPeterson^talk 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern to get it right is a good thing. -Jmh123 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

the last study supports the fact that csa is often confounded with other factors. that is why it is cited. and this methodological issue is widely known and many researchers are now considering it in their studies. keep, definitely. ~[[kinda]] 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what the study concluded, see my quote above. DPeterson^talk 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? the study is only cited because it reviews some of the other literature, and it DOES support the "child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment" statement. the line you quoted does not contradict this. "Child sexual abuse is not randomly distributed through the population. It occurs more frequently in children from socially deprived and disorganised family backgrounds (Finkelhor and Baron 1986; Beitchman et al. 1991; Russell 1986; Peters 1988; Mullen et al. 1993)." ~[[kinda]] 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of the study was that,

The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects

, the damage to these dimensions (trust, intimacy, etc) then lead to the other problems in later life not that those other issues (poor family environ) are confounding variables! Therefore, the line must go. DPeterson^talk 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you did not reply to the content of my response, you just threw out a red herring. the reference does indeed support what it is given to support, that child sexual abuse occurs alongside possible confounding variables often. that this happens does not mean that the negative effects of child sexual abuse in itself are not significant. it is simply recognized by csa researchers that other variables have a confounding effect, and that is why many studies now control for environment. nevertheless, i have changed the reference to a different study by mullen that looks at the issue in depth and indeed concludes that these variables are confounding and frequent. (but not that csa by itself is harmless!) ~[[kinda]] 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

Just reread the intro -- I don't agree with the new line that was added:

For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judement must be used.

But a person has to be 16 or older for this diagnosis. Persons younger than 16 *cannot* be diagnosed with pedophilia, according to the DSM-IV, because they don't fulfill Criterion C. (Of course, if someone younger than 16 commits child sexual abuse s/he *can* certainly be judged to be a sex offender.) Is there more information? -ZeroZ 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That line is a direct quote from the DSM-IV. RalphLender^talk 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I have edited the intro along the lines of our discussion here. Removed the adjectives, added reference material to support the discussion of terminology. The 11:09am edit was me; got logged out accidentally. The line I asked about in "Query," just above this section, I left alone until we can reach consensus. Cheers, ZeroZ 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETION

your concerns HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, as i have already explained thrice. there are NOT any comments here which are relevant to the information you are removing. please cease deleting material without discussion. ~[[kinda]] 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion looks good to me, SqueakBox 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

no reason for removing this information has been given, by you or dpeterson. this is a very notable methodological issue in the study of csa effects, which countless studies have addressed. i don't understand dpeterson's insistence on deleting it without comment! ~[[kinda]] 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that these are a very minor point and we should not give undue weight to ti. But, if you disagree, a poll would the appropriate dispute resolution vehicle to go to. DPeterson^talk 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

very minor? are you kidding? it's a major methodological issue that is well-known among research psychologists, discussed in innumerable studies and now usually considered in any serious investigation into the effects of child sexual abuse. there is also piles of mainstream research which has proven environment is a reliable covariate of the harm. (recent research has confirmed that csa by itself typically causes harm, but environment can predict the level of harm.) the issue is even known outside of research psychology thanks to the politicization of rind. furthermore, our explanation of this methodological issue is a necessary introduction to summaries of studies which have controlled for it. ~[[kinda]] 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

also, you have apparently misunderstood Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. please read it again: it makes it clear that a view such as this, (i.e. that the history of csa victims often has possible confounding variables, and that these variables may skew the results of studies which fail to control for them) which is generally accepted by research psychologists and has "easy to name prominent adherents" in fact, a single sentence hardly does justice for all the information on potentially confounding variables, and some are ignored here (if you're interested, begin at p. 173 of david finkelhor's a sourcebook on child sexual abuse. to give a random example of a study supporting this:

"Perceived family environment appears to be an important mediating variable in determining general level of adult psychological distress ... Subsequent adult impairment may be an effect not only of abuse but also of the context in which it is embedded." (Nash, et al. (1993), p.282)

briere & elliot note that "The most critical issue is wellknown to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse" (p.284)

of course, not all scientists believe it is wise to control for these covariates. briere & elliot also point out that sexual abuse may to some degree control family environment, or that sexual abuse may affect the subject's adult perception of their family environment. perhaps this information can be added if you would stop trying to remove any reference to this notable issue! ~[[kinda]] 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just reverting, I'd suggest the proper dispute resolution procedure is to now hold an informal poll. DPeterson^talk 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus is supposed to be gained by meaningful discussion. this is exactly what i am doing, and what you are ignoring. this notable information will remain for this reasons i have already explained until someone can articulate a valid reason for removing it. ~[[kinda]] 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I will support the deletion, SqueakBox 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

well your response does not indicate why. no one has given a valid reason for removing it. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation..." you are not doing this. i am trying to. stop being unreasonable. ~[[kinda]] 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only aim appears to be to try to minimise the undoubtedly real harm done by child sexual abuse and as such is an extreme minority view without notability, SqueakBox 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

what? the sentence's only aim is to inform of the undoubtedly real controversy over this issue, one that is, as briere and elliot said, "wellknown to behavioral scientists." and that this methodological issue exists is definitely not an "extreme minority view," according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. and, for your information, neither i nor any other researcher who recognize the importance of internal validity is trying to "minimize" the harm of child sexual abuse. please stop making these undue accusations. ~[[kinda]] 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you took offence but let me reassure you I wasnt referring to wikipedia editors but to the authors of the report and the report in general, SqueakBox 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

which report? i personally believe rind has an agenda, but the others do not seem to be seeking the abolishment of the aoc (judging from their other work). it is important that the gulf between science and morality be kept large. ~[[kinda]] 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last is an interesting statement if somewhat controversial, SqueakBox 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the arguments have been made at this point and suggest, Kind0, that an informal poll might be appropriate at this point. Everyone seems to have said their piece. But if you wish to continue debating some more, that's fine too. Why keep the gulf between science and morality large? I mean, child sexual abuse is illegal and abhorant. DPeterson^talk 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

read finkelhor's "What's wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problems of child abuse." science cannot justify its immorality, since some children are asymptomatic, and morality should not dictate the finding's of a study because then the study would not be scientific. (in other words, they undermine each other.) ethics is a philosophical and not scientific matter.

and again, consensus is supposed to be reached through...two-sided...discussion. ~[[kinda]] 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of confounding variables is scientific. Some of the other language might be controversial. How about this?
Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse [40][55][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] XXX, however, says, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." --Jmh123 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is okay with me. ~[[kinda]] 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelhor's view is a view and opinion. Incest and sexual abuse is pretty much taboo in prety much all societies. The children are "asymptomatic" 'DESPITE' having been molested by a Pedophile.DPeterson^talk 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

what is your point? ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd read all the comments before you begin trying to argue a point. As I said before, the studies do not make your point...the study says, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." DPeterson^talk 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe you should. that study is no longer present (despite there being no problem with its previous use there since it supported the statement.) the study i replaced it with, also by mullen, says: "Abuse of all types was more frequent in those from disturbed and disrupted family backgrounds. The background factors associated with reports of abuse were themselves often associated to the same range of negative adult outcomes as for abuse. Logistic regressions indicated that some, though not all, of the apparent associations between abuse and adult problems was accounted for by this matrix of childhood disadvantage from which abuse so often emerged." ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this?

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse [40][55][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] XXX, however, says, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." --Jmh123 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is fine, but it might be better to present XXX as a hypothesis or quote a conclusion instead. ~[[kinda]] 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

here is my attempt at the other side: "However, some other researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment." ok? ~[[kinda]] 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. XXX was supposed to be the name of the individual quoted, but I was too preoccupied elsewhere to go hunt it up. I prefer the direct quote myself. -Jmh123 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, i just meant that a hypothesis is not necessarily a statement of fact. maybe "says" could be changed to "hypothesizes." ~[[kinda]] 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok by me. So who said it? -Jmh123 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, "says" makes sense.

the reference is: Mullen, P. & Fleming, J. (1998). "Long-term effects of child sexual abuse," Issues in child abuse prevention (9). Australia: National Child Protection Clearing House. ~[[kinda]] 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What an old and minor article. DPeterson^talk 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC) The paper, states just what I said, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." In other words, child sexual abuse causes serious pyschological damage because of its damaging effects on "the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality." You've made my point, thank you. DPeterson^talk 01:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed trying to find a way to include this point, as mitigation for the other statement to which you have objected, using the quotation that you provided earlier. Fact is, confounding variables in any scientific study are possible, thus bringing up this possibility is not POV, but in order to provide balance, I added your quotation. -Jmh123 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK so we have this:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[40][55][56][57][58] Briere has hypothesized that "some part of the effects are a result of dysfunctional family dynamics and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse."(add fn to Briere, one or both) Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." -Jmh123 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not confounding variable, but are 'INTERVENING' variables. That is an enormous difference. DPeterson^talk 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK-how about now? -Jmh123 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

no, dpeterson is wrong again. intervening variables are, by definition, confounding variables (if not controlled for). perhaps dpeterson is confusing confounding variables with spurious variables, the other type of confounding variable. it would pov to say absolutely that the variable is either intervening or spurious, but simply noting that it's a confounding variable is a neutral statement of fact. ~[[kinda]] 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. labeling an intervening variable as confounding or spurious is misleading. In this case the varibles intervene in the causal chain from molestation to psychological and symptomatic damange. DPeterson^talk 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i did not label it as spurious, but intervening variables are confounding when not controlled for because they affect the dependent variables. this book excerpt expounds on this. ~[[kinda]] 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is intervening and not confounding in the sense most often taken. DPeterson^talk 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not true. an intervening variable (according to you, family environment) which affects the dependent variable (psychological adjustment) and is not controlled for is, by definition, confounding with the independent variable (child sexual abuse). you have provided no logical refutation of this--you're just grasping for straws. and whether the confounding variable family environment is an intervening variable or a spurious variable is a matter of debate. ~[[kinda]] 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to me, according to the quote from the article, so it is not a matter for debate. We might as well agree to disgree and let this go and just accept the consensus to leave the section out. DPeterson^talk 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus? those who agree with you here appear to have agreed with you on every dispute i can find, including those outside of this article. whenever i refute the ridiculous and extremely varied reasons ("grasping for straws") given for deleting this, the refuted editor either disappears or makes up a different and equally-absurd reason. you are mistaken about how consensus is built on wikipedia.

no, the article has never claimed family environment was an intervening variable. you did. ~[[kinda]] 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion is good and see no need to add anything else. SamDavidson 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, nothing else needs to be added and the deletion is better. DPeterson^talk 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Build Consensus First

Please stop adding material before consensus has been reached, Kind0. There exists a consensus to leave out the material you keep adding. I'd suggest you conduct an informal poll first before you continue on your edit war. DPeterson^talk 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

as i have said, consensus on wikipedia is built through discussion. just as admins here can discount voters who don't explain themself, i do not see three or four people saying "me too" and then refusing to participate in two-sided discussion as the establishment of consensus. i have invited you and those who agree with you to participate repeatedly, and have clearly wasted a lot of energy typing words ignored. the burden is now on you to try "building consensus," wiki-style: with reasoned discussion. ~[[kinda]] 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am really tired of all the fighting. People are treating people who are not enemies like enemies and running them off (Joie, e.g.) and it's impossible to edit or comment for all the edit conflicts because everybody has to get the last word in. I'm going to abstain from this particular battle and come back in a week or two and see where things stand. A lot of improvements have been accomplished in this article, and Zero did a fantastic job. I know there is a history that has put everyone on edge and on the defensive, but this is no way to work. There's too much hostility and not enough communication. -Jmh123 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take a breath, take a break, and build consensus, not just revert and revert. Editors may agree and not say more to avoid duplicating cogent arguments already made. That is what is going on here with others. A consensus seems to exist. but if you dispute that, the proper procedure is to hold an informal poll and/or file an RfC. I'd suggest you do both. But in any event, stop reverting as that is bordering on vandalism. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments were directed toward kinda, Kind0, 'not' Jmh123...sorry if that was not clear. DPeterson^talk 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just making it clear that I didn't revert anything or vandalize anything, and am certainly not interested in escalating any battles. It would be helpful if your comments were not so general. -Jmh123 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i have tried to develop consensus as wikipedia policy specifies: "through polite discussion and negotiation." jmh123 was the only person willing to do this, and s/he negotiated what might be a more acceptable version. you have rejected any attempt at two-sided discussion and negotiation, which is the proper path to consensus on wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. please attempt to follow wikipedia policy. ~[[kinda]] 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, since you are not happy with the results so far, your next steps can be to hold an informal poll (it does appear most editors diagree with you, but a poll will either confirm or deny that impression) and/or an RfC. I encourage you to do both. DPeterson^talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh...my...god

You guys had an edit war over the capitalization of sections and subsections? I think it's fair to say that this article may be doomed ...I mean, come on now. At least argue over something important like the content or possibility of bias in cited research. Viper2k6 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are anal about their grammar, but it's not that bad. Scroll a little in the diffs, and you'll see that the edit war is over something much more substantial. Someone just happened to fix the header capitalization while the article was in an unpopular state. --Askild 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted methodological issue

ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ ἓν μόνον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, τὴν ἐπιστήμην, καὶ ἓν μόνον κακόν, τὴν ἀμαθίαν ...[14]

DPeterson (and a few others, to lesser extent) have insisted on removing the following information:

Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[55] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[40][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[60]

Originally, DPeterson justified this by pointing out that the reference used to evidence our assertion that child sexual abuse occurs alongside possibly confounding variables hypothesized that *many* of the problems attributed to CSA were "second-order effects." (See #Another line to be deleted.) However, this criticism is invalid--the cited article only sources the claim that "child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment." We do not claim that the relationship found between CSA and mental health problems is a spurious one, and we certainly do not cite that study to prove any such claim. The study is cited because of its summary of occurence alongside confounding variables: it says, "Child sexual abuse is not randomly distributed through the population. It occurs more frequently in children from socially deprived and disorganised family backgrounds (Finkelhor and Baron 1986; Beitchman et al. 1991; Russell 1986; Peters 1988; Mullen et al. 1993)." Additionally, although family environment, etc. certainly confounds with child sexual abuse and in this manner increases the found effect size of studies which fail to control for it, many studies have found that though the relationship between CSA and adult psychopathology lessens when family environment is controlled for, it does not disappear entirely. This is in accordance with that studies hypothesis: _many_ of the associations found are indeed valid.

Regardless, I replaced this source to avoid further bickering. I pointed this out multiple times, but DPeterson hasn't yet acknowledged my change. The new study, which is anyway better and published in a more academic forum, is by the same auther as the previous and concludes: "Abuse of all types was more frequent in those from disturbed and disrupted family backgrounds. The background factors associated with reports of abuse were themselves often associated to the same range of negative adult outcomes as for abuse. Logistic regressions indicated that some, though not all, of the apparent associations between abuse and adult problems was accounted for by this matrix of childhood disadvantage from which abuse so often emerged." This indisputably supports the statement. Thus, I conclude that this issue is resolved and no longer relevant. DPeterson is welcome to explain any more objections he may have.

DPeterson gave a different argument on 6 June. He said, "The reason is that these are a very minor point and we should not give undue weight to ti. [sic]." First, lets deal with the policy he cites, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight--a policy he has apparently not read. The policy says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." A "tiny-minority view" is apparently a view held by a very, very few people, and one for which it isn't "easy to name prominent adherents" of.

For anyone familiar with the study of CSA effects, this methodological issue is notable and definitely not only considered by a "tiny minority." Briere & Elliot, in their 1993 paper discussing the issue, note that "The most critical issue is wellknown to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse" (p.284) Indeed, dozens of researchers have expounded on this methodological issue in papers, (eg. Berliner and Conte, 1993; Pope and Hudson, 1995; Levitt & Pinnell, 1995; etc.) and many studies now control for confounding variables (eg. Ageton, 1988; Nash et al. 1993; Roosa et al., 1999; Levitan et al, 2003; Kendler et al. 2000; Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor 1995; Fergusson et al. 1996; Fleming et al. 1999; Molnar, Berkman et al. 2001; Rind and Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et al., 1998; Widom, 1999; Mullen et al. 1993; Stein et al. 1988; Beitchman et al., 1991; Fromuth & Burk, 1989; Gidycz et al., 1995; Higgins & McCabe, 1994; Cole, 1988; Fromuth, 1986; Yama et al., 1992; Pallotta, 1992; etc.) Nash et al. concluded that: "Perceived family environment appears to be an important mediating variable in determining general level of adult psychological distress ... Subsequent adult impairment may be an effect not only of abuse but also of the context in which it is embedded." (Nash, et al. (1993), p.282) Additionally, those studies which do not control for family environment and other confounding variables now often note that their findings are limited by this (eg. Beitchman et al, 1992; Najman et al., 2005; etc.)

I believe I have demonstrated the notability of this issue. Following from this notability, it should be included per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Indeed, it is not even a minority view in the scientific realm, though I'm not sure how I would go about proving this. I am open to including other viewpoints, including Briere and Elliot's position, which can be summarized as follows: "However, some researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment."

Finally to address DPeterson's claim that I must stop discussing this and poll instead: he is simply wrong. On Wikipedia, consensus is built through meaningful discussion, and polls can never establish consensus--see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. If DPeterson has no valid reason for excluding this, it should be in the article. A few of his friends saying "me too" is not relevant, per Wikipedia policy.

Over! ~[[kinda]] 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, as so several other editors, and have restored the version that seems preferred by most editors, although not by you alone. DPeterson^talk 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree with you" doesn't cut it for discussion. Discuss your proposed edits. ~[[kinda]] 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, above. I urge you to read my comments in the sections above. You certainly are entitled to disagree, but most other editors here (all, perhaps) disagree with you, so reverting is really disruptive, I urge you to stop and listen to what the other editors have said.DPeterson^talk 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read and responded to all of your complaints. You have not done the same for me in turn... in particular, you still haven't acknowledged that Wikipedia is not a democracy and, contrary to Wikipedia policy, you base your reverts on appeals to the majority and refuse discussion.

Interestingly, I am not the first to notice this pattern in your behavior: "I contend this has always been a debate between me and AWeidman, and the "votes" here have been a sham. They have always been 1-1. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AWeidman has been trying to stuff the ballot box from almost the beginning as if it was. He doesn't debate the issues, just has stalking horses (if not sock puppets) sign on and demand that I go along with his position because I'm supposedly the odd one out."[15]

Please desist ignoring Wikipedia policy. ~[[kinda]] 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct now constitues a Personal attack by accusing me of being a sockpuppet without any basis. You must stop this behavior. DPeterson^talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Without any basis? You copied and pasted complete lines onto User:DPeterson from User:AWeidman! ("My areas of expertise and my areas of interest are: Psychotherapy with children and adolescents" [...] "Attachment theory, Sir John Bowlby, the application of attachment theory" ... Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [...] Evaluation and Treatment Psychology [...] Cognitive Behavior Therapy [...] If you want to contact me you can just leave a message on my talk page. etc) But this isn't about your sockpuppets, really. Try addressing the actual issue for once: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Consensus is built through discussion. ~[[kinda]] 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one is willing to provide any arguments against Kinda, Kinda's version should be restored. 00a00a0aa 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments have been provided above and previously. DPeterson^talk 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They have been refuted. Do you not understand what is meant by "discussion"? ~[[kinda]] 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, those cogent arguments have not been "refuted." You just disagree, which is certainly your right. But in this instance you are a minority of one, and one editor cannot hold an article hostage to a particular POV. Your POV is adequately represented in this article, to add more would be undue weight. Regards. DPeterson^talk 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What argument hasn't been refuted? And my range of POVs is irrelevant. I have demonstrated above the clear-cut notability of the concept you protest--an issue that is accepted by most research psychologists and is nowhere else described in the article. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and begin complying with it. ~[[kinda]] 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, but it's not rational since the facts are against your point of view. I searched and it seems you have not addressed the issues raised by Kinda in a proper way. 00a00a0aa 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see that "disputed" section as relevant or necessary. It is undue weight. JohnsonRon 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the section being disptued isn't relevant or necessary at all. DPeterson^talk 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, for all the reasons previously stated. RalphLender^talk 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to go against the grain here. That there may be variables that affect the results of psychological research is common knowledge. The section under debate states that it is important to control for such variables when conducting research on child sexual abuse, that studies which have controlled for certain variables have found reduced effects, but then adds a reference that emphasizes that sexual abuse does damage children and is the primary variable. Perhaps this phrase could be added at the end: ..."effects secondary to the primary variable, which is the sexual abuse." Adding Briere and Elliot's position as stated by kinda might be helpful as well: "However, some researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's children's later perception of their family environment." My attempts to find a compromise earlier were abruptly dismissed, and the argumentativeness was such on both sides that I have stayed out of it since. Assessments of consensus have ignored my support to include the passage in some form.

I do think the effects section as a whole, once the "positive" section was added, still tends toward POV, and thus adding the disputed text could be construed as contributing to undue weight; however, that would be better served, in my opinion, by adding more new and current research findings and/or deleting some of the other references--to Rind, for example, who is cited four times in the entry, more than any other scholar, despite being a controversial figure whose bias now has been admitted in these talk pages. -Jmh123 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative for full paragraph in which disputed text appeared:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse, and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)." Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects" while the primary variable is the sexual abuse. Kendler et al. found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes., and found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins. (full ref data is missing) After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom (1999) found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The authors concluded, "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition. Family, individual, and lifestyle variables also place individuals at risk and contribute to the symptoms of PTSD."

This version flows more smoothly, and contextualizes the material beginning with Kendler more effectively than the previous version. -Jmh123 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Should also mention that some researchers are very sceptical of the theory about a casual connection. 00a00a0aa 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ok, but I see two problems: "... secondary to the primary variable, which is the sexual abuse..." is not an actual quote, so it should either be in square brackets or placed outside the quote marks as a summary; and I cited sources other than Kendler et al. in the sentence about an independent link to psychological harm. So, we should either remove the other sources, add "and others" to Kendler, or add summaries of the other studies. I can do this... but the paragraph is becoming pretty long. What do you mean by "full ref data is missing"? ~[[kinda]] 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The botched quote was a case of not seeing the quotation marks. Sorry. Fixed that. I have a dickens of a time reading the text with all the ref codes and so forth. In this version there are multiple cites, dates in-text, in-text cites within quotes, and so on. Hard to follow. What I meant by full references missing is that if you follow the note to the bottom of the page (note 56 on the csa page), you see only teeny numbers. Something is missing. -Jmh123 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually claim a causal/independant relationship? I haven't read them but it seems like quite a bold statement considering the state of the research in this area. 00a00a0aa 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Causality would be very difficult to actually prove. They generally say that the adverse outcomes found cannot be explained by the other factors controlled for. Nelson et al. (2002) says, "The most straightforward interpretation of our results is that there is a direct association between CSA and risk for adverse outcomes." (But also "...we cannot infer a causal link from results for CSA-discordant pairs. It remains possible that other unmeasured risk factors, for which twins are discordant, predict both increased risk of CSA and other outcomes.") Kendler et al. (2000) says, "We were particularly concerned with evaluating noncausal mechanisms of association between CSA and psychiatric and drug use disorders. This association might be noncausal because familial factors such as family discord and conflict predispose to CSA and psychopathology. Our results suggest that little of the CSA-psychopathology association could be explained by this association because the ORs declined only slightly when we controlled for a range of such potential covariates when reported either by the parents or by the twins. These results are broadly consistent with similar analyses reported by 3 other groups," and "Although other biases cannot be ruled out, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that CSA is causally related to an increased risk for psychiatric and substance abuse disorders," and "... the pattern of the findings for most disorders supported a causal interpretation of the association between CSA and psychiatric and drug abuse disorders because, despite both being raised in the same family environment, the twin exposed to CSA had a consistently elevated risk for psychopathologic disorders compared with her unexposed cotwin." ~[[kinda]] 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposal still has lots of problems...best just to leave it out as others suggest. For example, the lines:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[5] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[6][7][8][9], and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[10]

have several problems. First, I don't think the term "confounding" is used in cite 5...I don't see that 6, 7, 8, and 9 state that they, "argue it is important..." The quote is from a very old cite...not really relevant. and, if you must propose using it, you do need a page number. I could go on...but this is indicative of the problems with this section and why it just should be left out completed as others have suggested. DPeterson^talk 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"First, I don't think the term confounding is used in cite 5." It is. "The quote is from a very old cite...not really relevant." Age is not relevant to relevancy. "I don't see that 6, 7, 8, and 9 state that they, argue it is important..." These were originally sources for the statement that it is a controversial issue. "if you must propose using it, you do need a page number." p. 199 ~[[kinda]] 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, the paragraph you proposed shows your hard work. Still, having read through the material, I agree that the disputed section should be left out altogether, for all the reasons stated above. -ZeroZ 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the greatest methodological problem in the area is simply not an option. It will be included, in one form or another. 00a00a0aa 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ZeroZ, leave out this material and keep the section deleted. It just isn't relevant, useful, and contributes nothing to the article. It seems we have a growing agreement to delete it. RalphLender^talk 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. 00a00a0aa 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RalphLender, it does look like there is a clear agreement or consensus among five or six editors and only one (or two?) who seem to disagree. Deletion is the plan now. SamDavidson 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see three distinct editors (DPeterson, ZeroZ, and SqueakBox) who support its exclusion, and three who do not (me, jmh123, 00a00a0aa). But who cares? How many times am I going to have explain that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Less "me too"-ing, and more actual discussion, please. ~[[kinda]] 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as I've probably said before, SqueakBox 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are five of six editors who wish to delete this and only Kinda seems opposed.DPeterson^talk 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting myself, for the record, once again: "That there may be variables that affect the results of psychological research is common knowledge. The section under debate states that it is important to control for such variables when conducting research on child sexual abuse." In simple language, while we often do agree, I do not agree with you on this one. -Jmh123 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we re-write the text so that everybody agrees to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be tried, but I think the material is just not relevant and representsWikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. But, sure, I'm willing to look at any suggestions. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There have already been suggestions. What is the problem with Jmh's version?

And how could you possibly conclude that a well-known methodological issue in the study of child sexual abuse effects is "not relevant" to the effects of child sexual abuse? I've already shown that this issue is far more notable than is required for one or two sentences. It qualifies for an article of its own, by Wikipedia standards. ~[[kinda]] 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole deal is very strange, either its a matter of lack of knowledge or bad faith, I will assume the first. 00a00a0aa

The previous suggestions were did not address the concerns raised in this and other sections above. But if otherw want to take a stab a developing a compromise, that's fine with me. As it stands now, most editors agree this is not a releveant section and gives undue weight...But If Will Beback or otherw want to try something different, I am open to that. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] there is no majority favouring your position yet. Your concerns have been responded to. The few raised in this section are either absurd (irrelevant, undue weight) or ignorant (undue weight, "these cites I haven't read might not say that"). I am open to your participation in discussion, still. ~[[kinda]] 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a registered user in other wikis, and I just happened to have read the whole discussion page. I find repulsive that people with clear pro-paedophile viewpoints are even allowed to write about this issue in Wikipedia, their lack of humanity and empathy is self-evident in their quest to find pathetic materialistic justifications to approach the issue of children sexual abuse from a "it's not always negative for the kid's health" point, while completely ignoring the clear psychological and human side-effects .

[personal comments removed] ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Emanuele  --81.125.177.1 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem doesn't usually come when editors have unusual viewpoints, it comes when they push them into prominent places in a articles. This article could use additional input if you'd like to comment on the material itself. This isn't the right page to comment on editors themselves though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a clear majority favoring deleting this section. I am infavor of doing just that, and so are several others...I count at least five other editors in favor of that. Listen, if you think that is not correct, then perhaps a poll is now in order. I will start that below. RalphLender^talk 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

POLL TO DELETE THIS SECTION

• 'AGREE' to delete. RalphLender^talk 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE to delete (and to poll about it). 00a00a0aa 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as 00a00a0aa says -- number29^(Talk) 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - in favor of deletion of citation to Rind following deleted material, rewrite of the deleted material, and rewrite of the section that follows deleted material. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - this deletion is unjustifiable. ~[[kinda]] 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG AGREE! Just not of significance. MarkWood 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, however, I am interested in seeing Jmh123's proposal...maybe you could create a new section for that and editors could comment on it there then. DPeterson^talk 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You've already seen and rejected it. Just clarifying the specifics for my "vote." -Jmh123 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• AGREE Either keep the article as is, without this section...or go with the suggestion in the section, "Go with This?" below. JonesRD_talk 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Agree' SamDavidson 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, SqueakBox 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE

How about the following:

Some writers argue it is important to control for variables that may be associated with child sexual abuse, such as physical abusele, in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[40][57]. Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[60]

DPeterson^talk 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Go with This?

1. Yes DPeterson^talk 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
2. No I don't see any improvement, this issue is much larger than this version shows. 00a00a0aa 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
3. ok As I said above, the entire section should stay deleted as the current article stands. However, in the interests of ending the arguments, I'll support this compromise to include the two lines proposed. RalphLender^talk 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Yeah this is OK. Herostratus 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
5. YES this is OK. JonesRD_talk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
6. 'Yes' SamDavidson 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Agree. Thanks for finding compromise language. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree, SqueakBox 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
9. no, does not address WHY some scholars believe it should be controlled for (it confounds). ~[[kinda]] 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Agree. -ZeroZ 09:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Agree. MarkWood 14:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
12. No. For the record. -Jmh123 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The above proposal has broad agreement. Please add it to the effects of child abuse section at the end. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see there is agreement. I will unprotect the page. Everyone should avoid restarting the edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement yet. 00a00a0aa 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. DPeterson^talk 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You confuse Majority voting with consensus, they are NOT the same thing. As long as there are unsettled factual issues in which there is clear disagreement then there can be no consensus. We are not holding the article hostage, YOU are by not addressing these issues in a constructive way. Voting doesn't make these issues go away. 00a00a0aa 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia statement on consensus and you will see that what we have here is consensus. The issues have been discussed in detail and agreement reached among nearly all/most editors here. You may continue to disagree, but there is really nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't already been said, hence, time to move on. DPeterson^talk 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no real responce have been given to either Kinda nor Jmh123 this is clearly not the case. And how many of the voters do even understand what they are voting about? 1? 2? 00a00a0aa 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

The revision is an improvement, but, in my opinion, it is not as effective as it could be as an topical introduction to the studies which follow in that paragraph, studies which, other than Rind, highlight results in studies in which significant effects are found even when variables are controlled for. Diminishing the issue diminishes the power of the response. See below for an alternative possibility. I have made several changes throughout in attempt to emphasize the topic of the paragraph. Rather than leading with Rind, I think it is more effective to lead with a general statement about the issue that Rind raised. -Jmh123 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

first, please reread the paragraph as it is written in the current entry:

Rind et al.'s[47] disputed 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college student samples concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally found nonsignificant in studies which control for these variables.[55] Other more current studies, however, have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[56][40][43] Kendler et al. (2000) found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[56] After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom (1999) found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The authors concluded, "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition. Family, individual, and lifestyle variables also place individuals at risk and contribute to the symptoms of PTSD."[42]

proposed revision of paragraph:

Some scholars argue that research into the effects of child sexual abuse must control for possibly confounding variables such as poor family environment and physical abuse [cite], and one controversial study concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally insignificant in studies which control for these variables. (cite Rind here) However, other researchers have countered that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment. (cite Martin and Fleming) Some more current studies that have addressed this issue by controlling for possibly confounding variables have found significant effects due to child sexual abuse. For example, Kendler et al. found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[7][6][12], and found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[7] (full ref data is missing) After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. [13] (delete final sentence from current entry, as the conclusion conflates physical and sexual abuse, and therefore reaches beyond the topic at hand.)

---

This is good. I suggest:

• "sexual abuse must control for" be changed to "sexual abuse should control for"
• "one controversial study" be changed to "Rind et al (1998)," both so we can include a wikilink and because other studies have reached similar conclusions.
• (cite Martin and Fleming) be (cite Briere and Elliot)

Also, [7][6][12] should be before "For example, Kendler," and some parts seem poorly placed. Briere and Elliot initially appear to be responding to Rind, and "However, more current studies" seems like a reply to Briere and Elliot. Confusing... ~[[kinda]] 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This is not an acceptable proposal. But the one above has the approval of all editors, except these two. DPeterson^talk 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, three editors are against and many of the yay sayers are just the usual voting crew. 00a00a0aa 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not ok...The first proposal above is much better and has the support of 9 of 11 editors. MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has no bearing, voting crews should not decide factual issues. 00a00a0aa 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a consensus and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative. Time to move on to other issues. DPeterson^talk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a good start, It's good enough to be included in the article. 00a00a0aa 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't acceptable. There the first proposal above, which has the support of 9 of 11 editors is much better and clearly is the version that has the broadest agreement. MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual issues should not be decided by who can rally up the most friends, it should be decided through arguments and at this point the version of DPeterson is clearly inferior, as shown in discussion. 00a00a0aa 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a consensus on the factual issues here and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative, which is balanced and NPOV. Time to move on to other issues. DPeterson^talk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the factual issues and no agreement on the compromise alternative. In fact, the newest alternative proposest by Jmh123 has no arguments against it at this point and thus has more power than your version which has many issues which have been shown already. At this point we should use Jmh123's version as this is byfar the strongest in terms of factual agreement. 00a00a0aa 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner by reverting accepted edits you do risk being sanctioned by an administrator. DPeterson^talk 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, and that pesky Jmh123 whom you absolutely refuse to acknowledge. I don't mind that others don't accept my compromises, but I really mind being "erased" by you throughout this entire discussion. Looks like the matter is settled regardless. -Jmh123 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not pesky....I've responded when I had something to add. I'd not seen you vote on the proposal and so I did not know if that meant support, oppose, or abstain. I am sorry if you felt ignored. Not my intention. While I may not always agree with your thoughts I don't always disgree either; again, sorry if my actions/inactions were a bother to you. DPeterson^talk 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS

[[kinda]] Accusations of me as a "sockpuppet" are clearly a Personal attack. I ask you to stop immediately and apologize for making a knowlingly false statment. DPeterson^talk 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) The evidence is at [[16]] DPeterson^talk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this is a red herring. ~[[kinda]] 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very serious offense and I do deserve and expect an apology. Personal attacks are quite serious here on Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not make a personal attack. I expect you to either discuss the methodology issue or stop removing it. ~[[kinda]] 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Making false accusations of sockpuppetry is a very serious offense and is a Personal attack, an apology is in order. DPeterson^talk 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete others talk page material

00a00a0aa, do not delete other editor's comments on talk pages, that is considered vandalism and there can be very serious sanctions for that. DPeterson^talk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Child sexual abuse; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, please do not delete other editor's comments on talk pages as you just did to me on this page. That is considered vandalism and there can be very serious sanctions for that. Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Child sexual abuse; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, comments which are not germane to improving the article may be removed from article talk pages. Comments about editors and their behavior should be placed either on their talk pages, or in forums set up for user discussions, like RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I gotta say I'm over my head here. I've never been attacked by a member of my own "team" before. I think it's time for some more experienced folks to step in and try to do something about this mess. -Jmh123 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all try to be on the same team: the Wikipedia team. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Trying to be. -Jmh123 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's move along to ArbCom already

When people are trying to remove material that have major impact on the research area while claiming that it is undue weight to even include it, then we have major problem. It doesn't matter if it is ignorance or in bad faith, it just isn't possible to edit this article under such conditions. Let's settle this in ArbCom and get it done already. 00a00a0aa 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia dipute resolution documents. The proper steps would be first to hold an informal poll, then work toward compromise, then, do an RfC, then, if all else fails, you can file a request for Mediation. AbCom would reject any request at this point as premature. So, if you really want to reach consensus, let's start with an informal poll and see where various interested parties stand and you could also file an RfC. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the idea of polling this shows how serious the matter is. 00a00a0aa 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom very rarely handles content disputes. ArbCom states: "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." While this does appear to be an interpersonal dispute, you are a long way from the point where they will be willing to take your case--I doubt very much that even the Mediation committee would take this case at this point. Their policy states that "a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives" is expected. -Jmh123 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So lets not. To be honest 00a00a0aa you would be the last person I would expect to want arbcom attention, SqueakBox 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say your section title is very Spanish! SqueakBox 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's just continue as usual then. I'm sure everything will work itself out in the end. 00a00a0aa 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

I propose to integrate the new South Africa material into our layout more thoroughly. The first paragraph, which discusses South African law, certainly should remain where it is, in the Legal section. But I would like the other two paragraphs, discussing incidence and the "virgins/AIDS cure" offender rationale, moved to the Medical section (perhaps to the Epidemiology and Offenders subsections, respectively). -ZeroZ 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. MarkWood 14:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can support that. DPeterson^talk 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. South Africa edits are done. -ZeroZ 13:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendler

Can i get a full reference to Kendler et al. (2000), it seems to be missing in the article. 00a00a0aa 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this in the article history: Kendler, K. S., Bulik, C. M., Silberg, J., Hettema, J. M., Myers, J., & Prescott, C. A. (2000). "Childhood sexual abuse and adult psychiatric and substance use disorders in women: An epidemiological and cotwin control analysis," Archives of General Psychiatry, 57 , 953-959.

Levitan

Rind et al.'s[47] controversial 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college student samples concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally found nonsignificant in studies which control for these variables.[55] Other more current studies, however, have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[56][40][43]

Does the other "more current" studies control for those variables? I skimmed through Levitan and did not find that it was the case in the study. I could be wrong so before I do anything drastic, feel free to comment on this. 00a00a0aa 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Kinda will be returning to explain why he/she posted, then deleted the quotation from Levitan that verified controls for other variables. -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I read the study title from the above section without checking the author, so I quoted the wrong study. I will try to verify levitan... ~[[kinda]] 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Jmh123 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Other, more current studies have found an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes see references 56, 40, 43, et. DPeterson^talk 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If they do not control for the variables, why are they written as a response to the first statement? I guess you won't mind if I make it more clear then. 00a00a0aa 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

00a00a0aa, your edit creates a contradiction in terms. DPeterson, if you know the literature, please respond from that knowledge. Repeating the text of the entry back does not respond to the question asked. Those with the POV that child sexual abuse is not harmful are well-versed in studies that support their POV. What we need at this point is argument from the research literature of mainstream psychology. Argument from that literature will be the most powerful response in these situations. 00a00a0aa, just because you checked one study doesn't mean the others didn't control for those variables. Until that is indicated, I will remove Levitan rather than use your revision. -Jmh123 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

00a00a0aa, it is important that this entry not put undue weight on the POV that sexual abuse is good for children, as that is not the mainstream scientific view on this topic. Please refrain from making edits to bring the entry closer to that POV. You are not operating from consensus in this matter. -Jmh123 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming that. but it is mainstream view that some children do not experience any negative effects and thus we should bring forth that research. 00a00a0aa 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is already stated in the entry. How many times should it be stated is the issue. -Jmh123 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem lies in the sentence because it gives a explanation on why some say its positive, but it offers only one viewpoint and this is a problem. So feel free to rewrite the sentence or re-include the Sandfort study. Btw, when you say that a study is old, you should be well aware that it is very common to cite studies that old among professional researchers, so beware of making such mistakes again. 00a00a0aa 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to get a lot of detail into an edit comment. If a study is twenty years old, it has either revolutionized the perspective of the discipline on this issue, or it hasn't. It has either spawned further research to confirm or deny, or it hasn't. In either case, there would be more recent cites available. Therefore, using a study that old to support a controversial statement just won't cut it. -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that new laws have come to place which makes such research almost impossible nowadays. Since the research in methodologically good and cited in pro-literature there should be no problem. 00a00a0aa 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I cite Judith Miller's NY Times articles on WMD on Wikipedia? The Times is a reliable source, after all. But her reporting on this issue has since been discredited. You have provided no cites in recent neutral, scientific literature to support your argument. Besides, as I have already stated, there is material in the entry to support the general view you wish to support. Enough is enough. -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I will remove or rewrite the line as it is now, because it is biased. The age of an article is only a problem if you have more current research that have advanced the field beyond the old, since this is not the case, you have no argument there at all. 00a00a0aa 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that there has not been subsequent research in this area. Please allow time for a response. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, I hope you don't mind if I restore the source meanwhile. 00a00a0aa 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do. You know that you don't have consensus. I will request page protection if necessary. -Jmh123 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You stopped being rational now, I will way a few days until you calm down. 00a00a0aa 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly rational and calm, thanks. The study is already cited--see the beginning of the paragraph in which you tried to cite it again. The point, as I said, has been made. There is no need to include another reference to the same study repeating the same idea. -Jmh123 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please dont make persoanl attacks against people you disagree with, SqueakBox 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 00a00a00a are really uncalled for and not the point here. DPeterson^talk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123's edits are fine. The studies cited find an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes...what else do you want? DPeterson^talk 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is if they also control for family environment which is the key issue here. If they don't then they should not be used as a counterargument against Rind, as they are now. If they don't control then the issue is separate and should be separated from the Rind conclusions. 00a00a0aa 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that none of these studies did control for family environment? "Independent association" indicates that they did. Look, I'm not going to hang around here arguing back and forth with you all day--not my style. I can ask for the page to be protected if you prefer. You know perfectly well these are controversial issues that have been debated ad nauseum on talk page after talk page after talk page. Your POV is expressed in the entry. If you try to use the entry to give undue weight to that POV, it will be removed. You are using your extensive knowledge of research that says what you want to hear to try to bias the entry in favor of a non-mainstream POV. -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with a very difficult area here, how do you actually give correct weight to different areas of the research? The usual solution is systematic approaches which are possible to duplicate by other researchers, and we could try such an approach here. The problem is that it may not work for very long on wikipedia since even if we make a good version, it will get hacked to pieces as usual in a short amount of time. We could try to make the readers aware of the larger ideological approaches that researchers have to this area, basically the victomological approach versus the "liberal" approach, which I think describes the two sides pretty well. We coukd inform the readers of the methodological problems of this area and so forth. Basically giving them the tools to make better values, rather than relying on us to make them for them. Just some ideas, we both want a good article so lets try to find a good approach that works for both of us. 00a00a0aa 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The studies cited address the methodological issues and make the point just fine that child sexual abuse is a very damaging event in the life of a child, irrespective of other issues and dynamics that may also be occuring, despite what Pedophiles and Pro-Pedophilia advocates may wish for. DPeterson^talk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Productive editing

Edit warring over "however" is pitiful. Let's first figure out, here on this talk page, what we want to say and then let's say it, rather than the other way around. I've protected the page for a couple of days to give us all a chance to take some deep breaths and carry on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. BTW, I wasn't rem the "however," merely restoring a prev version and that word got deleted in that move by mistake...I actually agree with Jmh123 on the inclusion of that word in the text...DPeterson^talk 12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not edit warring over "however". This was the passage that was added and removed multiple times: "Sandfort concludes that there are children whom, without many problems, enjoys friendship and sexual experiences with adults." ref to Sandfort, T. (1987). Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships, New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987. I agree that edit warring is pitiful--just didn't want to see this particular one mischaracterized. Thanks. -Jmh123 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's always a "good" reason to revert. IN any case, it's been found that the two editors with whom you were editing were in violation of Wikipedia policies and their accounts have been blocked. I've removed the article protection. Without that disruption I expect editing to be much more productive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...that's my expectation too. DPeterson^talk 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but at the same time I don't think the problem has been resolved. If anyone's noticed, I came on here once to contribute to the article and then left because...consensus doesn't seem to be one of our strengths. Um...if you want my opinion on the matter, I think everyone's so caught up in their own views that they're not really open to change. Or, they'll say that they're open to change, but then reject every opposing suggestion. I also noticed a lot of personal attacks...for example anytime someone suggests the possibility of there not being a causal relationship between CSA and negative effects, they're automatically labeled a pro-pedophile activist...which not only is an absurd statement to make, but it's also irrelevant either way.

Also, on a side note (since everyone's so anal about giving "undue weight" to unimportant issues), why does the article focus so much on the legalities of sexual abuse? About 1/3 of the article focuses on the laws in place prohibiting sexual abuse ...which is useful if I actually planned on abusing a child, but not good if I'm here to get an introduction to the topic. Would it not make sense to include sections on prevalence, children at risk, child grooming, and prevention? I mean Wikipedia is the 4th search result on Google for child sexual abuse ... in a sense, you almost have a responsibility to give an accurate introduction to the topic. And as a potential parent seeking information, all I'm going to leave here knowing is what legally constitutes sexual abuse/molestation. Is that really your goal here? I don't know...I'm gonna go to bed now. Though I strongly hope that you consider everything I've said... Viper2k6 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are deficiencies in the article. If editors get a break from those who assert that child sexual abuse is a good thing then they have a better opportunity to address those deficiencies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over the effects section to try to smooth over the discontinuities caused by merging the "positive" section into this section awhile back. I deleted no studies, just did some rearranging, approaching this from the point of view of a writer and editor. In my opinion, there were areas that leaned a little too hard towards a POV, and I did some rephrasing in those areas. The only sentence I deleted was the final one. The sentence immediately prior makes the same point, but doesn't get on a bully pulpit about it. -Jmh123 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the epidemiology section there were three references to websites. One was a copy of a scholarly paper, and I replaced that with the actual reference. The other two were links to sites where self-published books are advertised, so I removed these. I don't think that the statements themselves are controversial, so I didn't delete them, but others may disagree or may wish to find better support for them. -Jmh123 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws

Addressing Viper2k6's comment: while I am sure many sorts of information can and should be included in the article, there are excellent reasons to begin with and to include thorough information on the legal issues around child sexual abuse.

First, because child sexual abuse constitutes a set of crimes, a clear statement about the acts that constitute those crimes is useful for readers. Most people are unfamiliar with the method in which such crimes are reported by law enforcement nationwide, and definition of the terms provides a common language.

Second, earlier versions of this article tended toward weasel language in describing the nature of the criminal acts and their punishment. An argument I have seen advanced for that weasel language was that state laws differ in their specifics. That argument, however, badly misrepresents the relative uniformity in the elements of child sexual abuse law and in the trend toward increasing sanctions for adult perpetrators. Therefore, a discussion of certain legal commonalities, such as the inability of minors to consent, provides basic information for persons consulting the article as a general reference.

Third, modern inquiry into medical issues, such as prevalence, or sociological issues, such as risk of victimization, proceed from recognition of the crime of child sexual abuse in local, national, and international laws. The most complete discussion of offender motivations cannot describe the elements of a crime, or the legal response of a community or nation in addressing criminal acts. (As an analogy, a complete description of kleptomaniac motivation cannot substitute for information on the crime of robbery.) Medical information is vital in illuminating sequelae of child abuse, and psychology offers information on the motivation of some offenders. But these disciplines do not speak to, and cannot substitute for clear statements about, the fact that our culture, our laws, and the laws of other cultures judge sexual activity with children as crimes. Whatever else may be added, clear information about child sexual abuse as a set of criminal and civil offenses constitutes a basic requirement for this article. -ZeroZ 10:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Can we begin improving the article with the additon of this material now? DPeterson^talk 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Touché...that was very well thought out. I guess...if anyone wants to add sections on the topics I mentioned, I'd be obviously be in support of that too. Where in the article it should belong, may be up for debate. Viper2k6 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have suggested some useful additions. Why don't you dig up some sources and do some writing yourself? You can propose new sections here on talk to get feedback from other editors. -Jmh123 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa edit

Done. Moved the "virgin/AIDS cure myth" material into the Epidemiology subsection. It now follows (in a new paragraph) immediately after: female sexual abuse of males is often seen as 'desirable' and/or beneficial by judges, mass media pundits and other authorities. Of course, if it works better elsewhere within the Medical section, do move it. Cheers. -ZeroZ 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "Children at risk"

Obviously may need some work (citations, rephrasing), but it's a start:

Any child can be a victim of child sexual abuse. However in the U.S., most recent studies show that Caucasian children account for the highest percentage of child sexual abuse, second being Hispanics, and third being African Americans.1 The average age group for child sexual abuse is 8-11, with an average age of 9.9 for boys and 9.6 for girls. Additionally, children who are on the brink of puberty are at a high risk for abuse, as many child sex offenders will take advantage of their developing sexual curiosity. Furthermore, children who lack confidence or do not have strong social support (i.e. friends, family, etc) are at a much higher risk for sexual abuse, as many sex offenders will seek out such children. Lastly, children with special needs (i.e. lacking a father figure, living in poverty) are also at a higher risk for abuse because many offenders will shower such children with attention and gifts only to abuse their relationship at a more opportune time. Despite this however, it should be noted that sexual abuse occurs in both lower and upper class families, and is not limited to any specific demographic. Viper2k6 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are off to a great start and this would be a useful addition to the entry. Please look for more citations and continue to work on this section. In terms of style, "additionally," "furthermore," "lastly," and the like probably aren't necessary, but otherwise it looks very good. Oh, and "special needs" has a specific meaning within the field of intellectual and physical disabilities, so perhaps a different term? Looks like there's room here for an additional sentence or two on child grooming and a Wikilink. I like where you are going with this and look forward to more. -Jmh123 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice start. I agree with Jmh123's suggested improvements. Why not add it now to the prevelance section and then any minor edits can be made there? RalphLender^talk

I wouldn't recommend doing that until there are citations for all claims, OK? -Jmh123 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we could just post it until someone notices.....but yeah, I'll try to get some citations first lol Viper2k6 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jmh123 is right. Given the high conflict on this page it is probably best to get all the cites in there. I like the proposed section with the amendments suggested...let's just get the cites in so that we can avoid any needless conflicts and reverts. DPeterson^talk 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. Give me a few days...I'm kinda busy with other stuff. I'll post the revised version with citations when I'm ready (on the talk page). Viper2k6 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I've been very busy with work and other things (still !!) It may take several weeks before I even get time to start researching. If anyone else wants to post citations here or modify my proposal, please feel free. I'll try to return with sources as soon as I get time. Sorry Viper2k6 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)