Talk:Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome

More sources to be added

Wow, there's a TON of sources about CSAAS. Here is only a couple:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Google scholar, from 2005 to present alone has 169 sources listed. The page needs to be greatly expanded. Looks like this will be very interesting to explore and write about - there is tremendous agreement that it is a very promising description, but also just as much agreement that it's empirically unsupported and problematic. Reminds me a lot of parental alienation syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It cab be shown that some children who are sexually abuses suffer from a disrupted thinking pattern and they may feel abandoned and begin to blame themselves. The child may become confused, seeming as if he/she has no one to turn to . --Shannonschulte92 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Edits

I would have looked for paraphrasing and plagarism but I wasnt certain on your source it was not properly linked. Another thing to think about would be the way you worded your sentence the way that it comes off it seems that you are saying that all children are sexually abused suffer from a disrupted thinking pattern. That can become problamatic because you cant speak for every case. Good job keep it up :) AlexisBPorter (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As AlexisBPorter said, your citations are not properly linked, which is an enormous issue when it comes to dealing with plagiarism. Other than that the article was good! I made a few grammatical touch ups to make CSAAS sound like an issue that exist in today's day and age instead of solely in the past. To find more sources I would definitely try a few of those that WLU had posted on this discussion page, they seem helpful. Keep up the good work! STPyle (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you had some spelling errors that would need to be fixed in revising. Your information seems somewhat accurate but like the user above, says they were not properly linked. More work on that would be great in improving your work. We are just learning though but next time take that into consideration and your sentence structures, etc. will be better.--Am2493 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Really interesting topic, well written. I like how detailed it was and female and male victims were both discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazimi11 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Major NPOV issues introduced with current major rewrite of article

The major rewrite of this article that was recently done introduce all sorts of NPOV issues. First, the whole concept is very controversial to begin with with no scientific conscientious that it represents a valid syndrome. Just a basic search on Google Scholor on for "Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome" brought up several articles that mentioned it as being labeled as pseudoscience by a significant portion of the scientific community. It does have it supporters but this article needs to also include the criticisms and allegations of it being pseudoscience. Further the intro has major POV issues in addition to lack of any mention of the controversial nature of the alleged syndrome.

Some examples:

• "Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is a simple and logical model used by clinicians, courts and other institutions to improve the understanding and acceptance of a child's position in sexual victimization." This is opinion as not everyone agrees that is a "simple and logical model" and not every clinician, court, or other institutions excepts it as valid at this time.
• "As child sexual abuse is on the rise in our society, as an estimate of 500,000 new incidents are reported in the United States each year, this syndrome helps to educate individuals." Like I mentioned before, this syndrome is controversial and thus not everyone will agree that it "helps to educate individuals".
• "Roland C.Summit introduced this non-diagnostic syndrome in 1983 to help the victim's behavior become accepted in the public eye." Huh? The way this is written it basically states that his intent was to cause the public to be accepting of the negative behavior traits of sexual abuse victims as if such behaviors are a good thing. What I presume was meant was that it was intended to educate the public on possible signs of sexual abuse so they could better identify possible sexual abuse victims.
• "Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome featured heavily in the satanic rituals of the 1980s and 90s, because it purports to explain both delayed disclosures and withdrawals of false allegation of child sexual abuse." This describes the allegations of Satanic ritual abuse as if they actually happened when most experts agree that they did not happen. Also, while it indeed was and is used by some to explain why some children who claimed to be victims of Satanic ritual abuse either did not report it right away or retracted their claims later on, many experts believe the real reason for such retractions are due to the incidents having never taken place. So the statement quoted above could be worded better IMO.
• "Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is used to justify any statement made by a child as an indication that sexual abuse had occurred—immediate disclosure was an indication of abuse, as are delayed disclosure, withdrawal and sustained denial." Again, this also needs to be worded better and in less POV terms IMO.

The above represents just some of the major issues I have with the new intro but it is by far not the only NPOV issues with the article. The main body of the article has NPOV issues too, especially the lack of any mention of the controversial nature of this syndrome. This article really needs another major overhaul IMO to be more NPOV. --Cab88 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the stub version of 2011. There is nothing added which complies with NPOV, and little which complies with WP:V. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead of the new article is a copy-paste of the stub, but the body is almost entirely Sumitt's opinion, and mostly referenced to the single 1983 paper. Perhaps the best approach would be to rename it to RC Sumitt's theory of child sexual abuse accommodation, if the new material is to be kept at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin,

I have tried my best to eliminate the parts of the article that presented NPOV issue. I would really appreciate it if you could provide me feedback.

Thanks -ProBonoPublicoA90

Source Shiu

Who is Margaret Shiu? Why is her opinion relevant enough to quote here? Google gives 3900 results for her name, mostly, it seems, about an artist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Summary of the Syndrome

This is not "to describe how he believed sexually abused children responded to ongoing sexual abuse." This is a secondary syndrome (see abstract) of how the crisis faced by a child in the crisis of "discovery" — a child may attempt to tell a non-abusing person(s) about being abused, and being met by disbelief, admonishment, blame or rejection the child is left without recourse to get support or assistance to make the abuse stop, and the child shuts down. That's where the 5 stages come in. These are not reactions to the primary abuse — but to the secondary abuse of not being believed, heard, or being actually shamed or punished for speaking up about being abused. Basically, this syndrome explains "Why didn't you tell anyone?" — it's likely the victim did try, and was shut down.

In any case, some simple wording changes are called for in the article to correct this so that the article/syndrome is correctly characterized. A child does not initially just keep abuse secret — they may be threatened into secrecy, told that no one will believe them, and when they chance saying something if they are shut down, the syndrome escalates as the child attempts to handle the primary abuse while feeling increasingly ashamed, abandoned, and alone to handle it.

While it's characterized as a syndrome of the child, it's actually caused by the veil of secrecy and shame in the family around abusers and how children are indoctrinated into maintaining that family culture of keeping silent and protecting abusers within the family. The Crisses (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)