Talk:Child sexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ancient/primitive cultures

This is for the random IP that has been repeatedly inserting the material regarding tribal cultures. You need to be willing to discuss these issues here on the talk page. This is a normal and healthy process of developing a article and resolving conflicts.

In the grand scheme of this article, which is related to the psychological development of a human being in the realm of sexuality, commentary on rather obscure tribal cultures is if questionable relevance. In addition the research itself is rather limited in its usefulness, as it simply states actions observed, but contains no information as to the psychological processes of such people or sequelae later in life.

Furthermore, a great deal of the material being inserted is from a dubious source. This same source's own bibliographical references have in some cases been misquoted or outright fabricated. For example Suggs observations are fairly well known, but every book and other primary source I have unearthed about him has nothing to do with child sexuality. The stated quoted ("Marquesan children are likely to suprise Europeans...") used has no corroboration in any material I can find. "Surprise" isn't even spelled correctly! Among the only relevant information I could locate from Suggs was that Marquesan girls treated their genitals with herbs as a preparation for later in life. Legitimus (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is child sexuality, the marquesan, stick out from the crowd, you attempt censureship. A culture section existed for years. Depending of culture, things can change, say sexuality in Saudi Arabia and Sweden, is quite a difference. The "psychological development" means how western societies see the issue today, for example ancient Greeks and many others had pederasty(i know, adolescents). Marquesas custom are history, study psychology of processes that don't happen any more, is a little bit difficult. The sources are stated in the footnotes.Suggs study marquesan culture, he doesn't specialize in any part of it. Suprise, it is manually copied from a book. --217.112.186.45 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Spreekt u Engels? Look I get it, alright, but the problem is the sources aren't any good. I've READ many of those books those "quotes" supposedly come from, and they don't say these things. I can't even find anything that substantiates these claims about these cultures. That website you got these from even claims that modern day Japanese mothers are commonly observed by westerners masturbating their male children in public. Where in blazes did he get that idea?!! Because I'd sure like to know.Legitimus (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey institute is part of the evil pedophile plot too? Or maybe it's a scam site too? You can complain here. --217.112.186.45 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I don't seem to recall mentioning pedophiles (whom Dr. Kinsey used to collect his data, mind you). Well regardless a lot of these anthropologists themselves and their observations were mentioned in a history book I read, under the chapter titled "Making it up as they go," and I'll leave it at that.

Regardless, even if taken at face value, this information lacks any kind of longitudinal data, which is needed to be of use psychologically. These cultures may have been fine in adulthood, or most of them may have been utterly mad as hatters when they grew up. We just don't know. And if we don't know, then we can't use it.Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OR, and POV pushing. If Kinsey institute, have it on there servers, it's good, for Wikipedia, it's all about verifiability, not truth remember. You mean, the chapter "Liberals are making it up as they go"? What was this? --217.112.177.220 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kinsey Institute is a reliable source, so at least that needs investigating. The other sources need quoting properly and the sheer volume would beter suit a new article, as this one focuses on sexuality which is a topic that spans beyond sexually expressed behaviours. The constant slagging, including Legitimus' purging another editor's comments from the page is not proper behaviour for scholarly discussion, if that is what we are pretending to. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that material may be suited to a new or different article, if the sources can be verified to be reliable. This article is not about the anthropology of historical cultures. The text at that URL qualifies its content with the phrase "During the traditional times". The source also specifically states that it describes the "ethnotheory" of the Marquesas islanders (a tiny fraction of the earth's population, approximately .0004%). There are not enough words in this article to present such a tiny fraction with due weight. That percentage is so small it would be less than one letter of one word out of the entire article.

Aside from the undue weight, the details in that source are also irrelevant to this article, because it describes no scientific theory of child sexuality, it describes cultural traditions of how adults guide their children into their social roles, in that obscure society. If the source is reliable, it could be used in articles about those topics, but in this article it is a fringe theory and original research. It may be worthy of a sentence to indicate that various cultures have differing approaches to child rearing with regards to sexual development, but to include even that would require a careful approach to avoid making assumptions not supported by science.-Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC marquesan sex education customs

Arguments for inclusion

• A cultural section, on this very issue existed for years before, clear councencus, that this article about Child sexuality, in a very inclusive way. It was removed in September on grounds of reliability, of the source.
• Historic fact, not a point of view, or making any claim, undue weight doesn't apply. It's not a crank theory.
• Very relevant, for the article, unique in the world.
• Source at Kinsey institute. Doubting Kinsey institute is OR, if a reliable source, claims that, it will be included too.
• No scientific theory, so what? A lot of the article is just descriptive.

Arguments against inclusion

• This article is not about the anthropology of historical cultures.
• Whether or not the section existed in the past is not relevant to the current decision consensus.
• Undue weight,a tiny fraction of the earth's population, approximately .0004% does not apply to the topic of child sexuality in general
• Irrelevant to this article, because it describes no scientific theory
• It's a Fringe theory and original research to apply customs of one obscure historical society to an article in the general area of child development
• Off-topic: it describes actions of adults in child-rearing, in that one obscure historical society, with no supporting research connecting those traditions to the development of children.
• Dubious reliability of the underlying sources quoted by Kinsey, their research methods, and their conclusion.
• Not verifiable: Lack of reliable sources citing the contested information with regards to to the topic of child sexuality

The contested material. -Unsigned

Hi, 217... I recall that you were already told that the Kinsey Institute is RS and the material was removed because it was part of a bad edit. Excessive material relating to the sexual upbringing of children will be taken out of this article because it does not belong here. An article pertaining to much of the material that you referenced (Adult-child sex) was deleted some time ago after a vote. This does not mean that you are not entitled to create a new one if you feel that you have the sources and can demonstrate that the topic is notable. forestPIG^(grunt) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, only you said that it was RS, the other two, start claiming that they where fabricated(evil pedophile plot). It belongs where? It's not about adult-child sex, it's more about.... child-child sex, are you proposing this article then? It's going to be deleted in no time. This material was here for years until September, check it out. The article it self says that they are two views, ither its all culture, or it's all biology. A bunch of the article, sais that "this is normative for western societies"--217.112.177.154 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

217.112..., No-one in this discussion has mentioned an ""evil pedophile plot" except you - and you have mentioned it twice. Making statements like that one is probably not the best way for you to argue your points. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, in your contributions, and this pattern emerges, in oversimplified way of course. I'm founding this intense interest on the matter, from you and your buddies, unsettling--217.112.177.154 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will accept Kinsey as RS. btw I was not referring to Kinsey previously when I alleged dubiousness of certain items, but rather the other original source, and the likes of people such as Ford & Beach, whom have been criticized for bending the truth a bit with their work in these islands. I have my own reservations about Kinsey's work, but this is no place for that.

I want to press a few points that you hit on: This isn't an anthropology article, as stated, and applicably of the Marquesan observations doesn't seem very strong. What I mean by that is, there isn't much detail to them. It just says they did X, or allowed X. That's not very useful. I can think of all sorts of bizarre cultural practices that go on around the world (such as genital mutilation) but it doesn't lend itself to this article in a meaningful way. The second point is the presence of this material over a long period of time on Wikipedia. Give this articles low traffic level and linking, it is possible that this was simply due to it's obscurity, and lack of effort to fact-check up to this point.Legitimus (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion for the reasons listed in the RFC statement and in my comment in the section#Ancient and Primitive Cultures above at 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, based on the support/oppose arguments. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion I don't think this article will be of interest to a lot of people, simply because of the subject material. The majority of Kinsey's work has been discredited. User: Matti_alchemy76

Cultural issues section removed

“ Sexualization of children refers to a phenomenon in Western societies in which children display a level of sexual knowledge or sexual behaviour deemed by some to be inappropriate for their age group. This is often compared and contrasted with popular notions of childhood innocence.

Some cultural critics have postulated that over recent decades children have evidenced a level of sexual knowledge or sexual behaviour that their culture deems inappropriate for their age group. A number of different causes are cited, including media portrayals of sex and related issues, especially in media aimed at children; marketing of products with sexual connotations to childrenlack of parental oversight and discipline; and access to adult culture via the Internet.

”

Discussion

An editor has expressed interest in restoring this section, please voice support, oppose and other comments so a consensus can be reached. -- Banjeboi 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion While the inclusion of the above-quoted section seems to be ok, it's any lacking scientific sources. The sources quoted are all popular press from the UK, without even quotations from experts. If schoalrly sources were found and used, I would potentially reverse my view.Legitimus (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - original research. Most of the quoted text has no sources at all, and the three sources in the last sentence are not reliable for this use. Those newspaper stories are only reliable for reporting the particular events, not for stating scientific conclusions. The text is also off-topic: the first source is not even about children at all, it's about teenagers. The other two are about parenting and the dangers of child sexual abuse that could result from pre-teen girls wearing lingerie without understanding the signals it might send. That's not the topic of this article, because those are about actions of adults, not the development of children. It's possible a section on sexualization of children or cultural issues could be developed with proper sources, but the above text does not qualify.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as it looks like original research to me too, and the sources do not contain the original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing of Jack-A-Roe [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.186.131 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly canvassing as I am well known for my interest in this area but can't attend to my watchlist as much as before, I appreciated his letting me know about this original research inclusion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objections to the section and believe that it should be kept. EmilianaMartín (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2009

Mothers

"Mothers who let their daughters have underage sex with women in her own home" How many mothers would let their daughters have sex with a woman 11 years older than her daughter and approve of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.102.22 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many polls where you could get any statistics for a question like that, nor do I see the relevance to this article in asking it. Tyciol (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge from sexualization of children

This is a small article created by Tort in 2006. Xy immediately tagged it to be merged into this article and Hero performed the merge. I only found this out by checking the history, but it looks like in February a single purpose editor reverted the merge+redirect and restored the article's content. Nobody seemed to catch it and people went on updating links and stuff. This is obviously detestable conduct, but since it's brought things to my attention, I am wondering if the content of that article was properly treated? There is also an article on sexualization which has a subsection on how it pertains to children. So I added an additional merge tag, because I think that it pertains to both topics. The final question should be where it redirects though, and since the primary topic is 'sexualization' I think that it should be to sexualization rather than to child sexuality. These are very closely linked, so I think it would be appropriate if both articles had a blurb discussing the topic and linking to the other, what do you think? Tyciol (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That stub had no references at all. Redirected to Sexualization#Children. The sexualization article also is in bad shape with minimal sources but it's a start. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Reference 2, Reisman, Judith. "A PERSONAL ODYSSEY TO THE TRUTH" [2] comes from a site which acts as a publicity agent promoting the writers as possible guests for TV shows. The credo of the site is stated as "Our Mission at Special Guests: To obey God as He leads us in matching Judeo-Christian guests with talk show hosts to disseminate vital information that ministers to the physical and spiritual well being of listeners and viewers." It does not seem to qualify as a reliable source for the charges it supports. Therefore I will remove it. Edison (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that neutrality?

Supposedly this "encyclopedia" is "neutral", but every information, including scientific information, that supports the idea that sexual and romantic relationships among adult people and children is not harmful and can be positive is erased immediately. Is that neutrality? Is that a scientific behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.16.145 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all sources are considered reliable or scientific, and some represent a fringe view that is not representative of systemically gathered human knowledge. Some so-called "scientific" information you speak of is weak, dubious, misinterpreted, discredited, and in some cases outright fabricated. You did not offer a single reliable source, you broke the rules of wikipedia by edit warring rather than discussing, and you break more by posting after you have been blocked. Be gone, and tell your kind they can expect no different.Legitimus (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Normative

I understand "normative" to mean what actually happens, not what a particular group or individual desires to be what happens. From that understanding, I'm not sure if an outline of admitted "oughts" from Planned Parenthood is useful in defining normative child sexuality in United States culture. IsaacSapphire (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what is everyday knowledge for an adult is frequently a mystery to children, to the extent that they will come up with wild theories about it. For example, a common opinion among middle schoolers is that rape is partly or entirely the victim's fault. That's not something that is typically addressed, and IMO a big reason why so few children come forward at the time of attack. After educating themselves on sex, most people come to understand (as teens/adults) that rape is an attack and not an indicator of the victim's morality.

Kids need basic sex ed before they seriously consider having sex. This is something that anyone can pinpoint through studies and common sense. And this list is really rudimentary stuff for sex educators to cover.

Honestly, I'd love it if my children didn't get married until they were 30 and didn't have premarital sex. But that is a fantasy; virtually no one does that. So in the end, I'd rather they know the basics at 11/12 with more information as they get older.98.225.230.65 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish pre-school staff observations

I removed this material from the article:

A study in [[Sweden]] indicates that masturbation, in children of this age range, was observed by preschool staff, who observed incidence between 2% and 6% and reported by 14% of parents on a questionnaire that this was more common with boys than with girls. The observers generally "judged the masturbation to be associated with relaxation and desire on the part of the child." (pp. 17-19) <ref name="larsson" />.

The material was inserted in the discussion of normative early childhood sexual behavior. The "observers" referenced are pre-school staff who are not qualified to make psychological determinations or diagnoses about childhood sexual behaviors. This is not a reliable source for the psychological or developmental implications of early childhood masturbation. Whatever point the editor is trying to make here, he needs to find a more reliable source and one that doesn't require WP:SYNTH to draw a conclusion.Minor4th • talk 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that material for the reasons specified. This is a difficult topic where misunderstandings are common, so the sources need careful vetting. In addition, it's useful to note that Larson's paper was not published in a journal or peer-reviewed. It's a report by a postgrad student, commissioned by a government agency and reviewed by one professor, and the PDF link is hosted on a personal web page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, and I now agree with removal. Lova Falk talk 09:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not explain it better the first time I removed it. That really was not fair to you. I will make a better habit of explaining things on talk pages. Minor4th • talk 10:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice. But often it is enough to explain it in the edit summary. Lova Falk talk 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with this?

"Pre-teen years Planned Parenthood in the US recommends that pre-teen children should learn, among other things:[32] The general stages of sexual development in young humans of each sex and the general timing of normal development (including emotional changes). That sex is not only for having babies and is also done for pleasure. Knowledge about aspects of sex in society, including prostitution, rape, and exploitative relationships. How to avoid pregnancy and prevent sexually transmitted infections."

It's under the normative section. It's not saying that this is normative. It only states that planned parenthood in the US recommends this. I could put in here that the Catholic Church recommends not teaching your kids about any of that and it would be the same thing. How about instead of pushing agenda you put up what actually is normative in the preteen years.70.15.191.119 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

removed the normative section labeled preteen.

Planned parenthoods recommendation to parents/adult figures of what a preteen should or should not know does not go hand in hand with what is actual normative for a preteen and therefore I removed that section. Planned parenthoods recommendations are no better or worse than anyone else's recommendations. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in another section and for the purpose of neutrality if added to another section it should stand by similar recommendations held popular.70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The concept of what is normative shouldn't be foreign. Planned parenthood wants, desires, and hopes for that to be normative but in order for it to be normative it would actually have to be normative. Putting up planned parenthood propaganda is the same as putting up any given religious directive. One doesn't out way the other. Planned parenthood wants this but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity want that. Want as you will but you still lack any verifiable source what so ever to show that this is normative and as such it should be removed from this section. Add it to another section if you like but for the purpose of neutrality it shouldn't stand alone in that new section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing grammar problems

This area needs some help

"989 paper reported the results of a questionnaire with responses from 526 undergraduate college students in which 17 percent of the respondents stated that they had .[33]" Also there was something about "15 percent girls and 10 percent boys" What was the other 75 percent?

That is not a sentence, and it doesn't flow with the previous sentence well either.

I don't know what is or isn't missing, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj.amdphreak (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for spotting this. It turns out that an anon mangled it over a series of edits on 12 December, but as the partially self-reverted it wasn't caught. I've restored it now. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Freud

So while it mentions early in the article that some Freudian ideas, such as Oedipus Complex, are obsolete, later in the article under Normative Behavior, it states some clearly Oedipal ideas, and cites a source (#27) that does not actually show research done to support the claim. Can somebody with more authority on modern research done on Freudian theory take a look at this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the article's claim that "his ideas, such as psycho-sexual development and the Oedipus complex, have been rejected" seems to contradict the information in those two articles which should be the first to propound a general rejection of these theories. __meco (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexualization or Desexualization?

Do kids naturally stop being sexual as they grow up before becoming sexual again during puberty or is it society that repress those types of behaviors on kids until eventually they can't be influenced as much anymore and just return to their natural state? In other words, has it been identified why kids on early age do sexual things, then stop, and then start again? And when people say kids are getting sexualized, do we know if kids are being pushed towards that more strongly or just being pulled away more weakly? --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Freud noted in his psychosexual development theory that there is what he termed a 'latency' period from the age of 6 (roughly) to the onset of puberty. While people have mixed feelings about Freud's theory and many outright reject it, the behavior itself is still plainly observable, and it is a largely biological process from my understanding. As to the second issue, I am not clear what you mean. Are you talking about the changes in culture in this day and age vs. previous ones? Or the general subject of "premature sexualization" (such by exposure to sexual material or abuse)?Legitimus (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean how people comment that nowadays the average age for loosing virginity (for both genders), or just simply dressing in a manner that emulates how grown ups dress when they want to look sexy etc is much earlier than it used to be in the recent past; basicly i'm talking about this observation that kids in general seem to be "starting earlier" nowadays. --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link for reference #16 is broken, new source needs to be found. Netel9 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Supporting a worldview

Well someone complained about the article not supporting a worldview of normative behaviors, so I put up something from a non western society. I'll be looking around for more alternative views on the matter, but help would be appreciated. Also I'm not a regular editor so my edits may not be the best format. 71.20.187.169 (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Just a couple of caveats since I see you are new and have not registered a username:

• Be wary of WP:UNDUE. There should not be excessive emphasis or space giving the practices of obscure tribal cultures, or to rare, largely abandoned practices of larger cultures. In other words, mention is fine, but they should not be portrayed as equal to the majority of the industrialized world.
• Check sources carefully. Some sources on "sexually liberated" tribal cultures, while widely discussed, were actually discredited or are at the very least, of dubious accuracy. This was often the case with European explorers who had some kind of political axe to grind.
• Just because some culture considers a practice normative does not mean it is not harmful or that the people subjected to that are not damaged psychiatrically by it. Many cultures still mutilate women's genitals or torture/rape prisoners of war and it is seen as "normal."

Legitimus (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. On the last point, I'll try to see if the psychological effects (traumatic or not) of this behavior is mentioned in any of the books regarding the culture in question, and see if I can add it to this or the child sexual abuse article. 71.20.187.169 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Expert Attention Needed

I have done some re-structuring and padding with a few references, but this really needs a comprehensive quality and completeness review by an expert Timpo (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Timpo, you should review WP:Manual of Style so that you become familiar with the appropriate times to capitalize headings or portions of headings. Other issues are that you capitalize non-heading words that should not be capitalized, and you sometimes forget to add a period at the end of a sentence or you violate WP:REFPUNCT by placing a punctuation after the reference. I've tweaked your text before. See here and here, before Legitimus changed what you'd added. So, again, become better familiarized with WP:Manual of Style so that cleaning up your text is not left up to others. Editors have been known to remove text simply because it substantially goes against WP:Manual of Style. I'm waiting to see if Legitimus will alter your text again, before I tweak your text again.

As for your expert-tag, it doesn't take an expert to fix up this article. But I'm not going to contest the tag at this time. I have barely edited this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So far the content itself is pretty good though. It reads a little funny, but I'm not skilled enough at primary writing and style to provide a proper critique. Feel free to edit, Flyer. I'd like to add more biology but I need to find the right books since this is a bit outside my own expertise. I'm thinking popular mainstream medical textbooks.Legitimus (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked some more here, and when fixing my own typo here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed this one. Also, the Christianity and Islam sections are a bit off-topic since they don't mention children. While the text can be taken to apply to children as well, it is best for this article to have text that specifically focuses on children and especially child sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

More tweaks.[3][4][5] I will make more every now and then to this article, especially when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better article now, well done and thanks - it looks OK now - I am not an expert, but if someone better informed agrees, ¿maybe the expert tag should go?. Thanks for the tips. Generally I use capitals for what I think are 'proper' nouns like Punishment Tables (specific documents), and I do tend to capitalize headings. The others are 'cut and paste' links to be sure I spell correctly (I can be a bit dyslexic, so the spell-check is always on, but (like me) it is not a perfect solution - regards, Timpo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I agree with removing the expert-tag. And as for using capitals...and capitalizing headings, just make sure that you no longer format Wikipedia articles improperly (including forgetting to add periods); it's improper on Wikipedia, per, like I pointed to above, WP:Manual of Style. Formatting articles like that leaves others to clean up after you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Confucius quote

"Confucius is said to have stated: "I have never seen one who loves virtue as much as he loves sex." Confucius in 'Analects'"

I have a copy of The Analects and I believe that this passage is 9.18 (chapter 9, paragraph 18). Although I don't speak Archaic Chinese, the translation for the passage goes like "The Master said, 'I have not seen one who loves virtue as he loves beauty.'" (子曰：「吾未見好德如好色者也。」) in the Chinese Text Project and "The Master Said: 'I've never seen someone who enjoys Virtue as much as (he) enjoys the beauty of women." in Sinedino Giorgio translation to Portuguese (published by UNESP in 2012, ISBN 978-85-393-0227-7).

Although one may interpret the passage like in the way that is written on the article (that he meant, literally, sex), Zhu Xi commentary explains the situation in which Confucius said that, which leaves no doubt that he wasn't talking about sex, but simply about women.

I suggest this quote gets removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.133.85 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your comment, the quote was removed by Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kinsey studies

I originally inserted the following observation on the criticism of Kinsey's studies, namely that his studies involved sexual acts being committed on children: "though this criticism in and of itself neither invalidates nor confirms Kinsey's findings, residing more in ad hominem territory". This is a valid observation as, much as we me have cause to balk at Kinsey's use of child subjects, his methodology would have been speculative and unsound without using child subjects. This particular criticism of Kinsey is therefore not valid, calling into question his character rather than his methodology. My observation was removed without good reason, and I am reinstating it. Gloriousgee (talk 08:49, 8 January 2014 (GMT)

Don't add this again. You were already reverted on it and got a stern warning by me not to add it again; adding it violates WP:Verifiability and WP:Editorializing, as already partly explained in my initial revert of you and as other experienced editors (such as Lova Falk) who have also edited this article would tell you. It is not your job to insert your personal analysis; nor is it allowed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If Gloriousgee had actually bothered to read further into Kinsey's work, it would be quite obvious that his argument is pointless: Kinsey's entire dataset was from the diary of a single pedophile, and he intentionally obscured it to make it look like multiple sources. It's not ad-hominem; Kinsey lied and used a faulty source. I think it's about high time I updated that section to spell out the whole story, because it seems like nobody ever heard "Part II."Legitimus (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted WP:Spinout

Hendrick 99, regarding this WP:Spinout that I reverted, and this page I redirected, WP:Spinout articles should ideally only be created when necessary. Read what WP:Spinout states, especially what it states about there being no need for haste. I don't see how a WP:Spinout article is necessary in this case. There is no WP:SIZE issue. And while the In Western cultures section looks big from the table of contents, it actually is not big; look at it. The subheadings, which I reduced after reverting your split, make it look big. Yes, the article should have more material in the In non-Western cultures section; the solution is to add more to that section, not unnecessarily create a WP:Spinout article focusing specifically on child sexuality/child sexual behavior in Western cultures to "balance things out" in the parent article. Like the WP:POVFORK section of WP:Content fork states, "[...] POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, going on research aspects, there is likely significantly more to state about child sexuality in Western cultures than child sexuality in non-Western cultures; this is similar with regard to adolescent or adult sexuality in Western cultures compared to adolescent or adult sexuality in non-Western cultures. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Article lead and structuring

• "Child sexuality is concerned".. probably should mean "this article is dealing with"
• "...the biological, psychological and social influences upon the sexual development of children, and the range of sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty"

-for me it would seem more logical to focus on the second part first and foremost (sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty) and structure the article accordingly. Which means moving Freud, followed by "theories and research" to the top of the article and moving all the "cultural" stuff further down.

Richiez (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "this article is dealing with" part, we typically should not employ WP:Self reference. Regarding the "the biological, psychological and social influences," no matter where we place that content in the lead, it should, per WP:Lead, be in the lead since the lower part of the article addresses those aspects. I don't see why you wouldn't want "biological" noted upfront, given the role it plays in sexuality. The Freud section is a part of the History section, and fits fine there. And the Theories and research section is a part of the In Western cultures section, for obvious reasons. So what type of layout are you proposing regarding those two aspects? If it's to move the Freud bit out of the History section, I ask why. And if it's also to move the Theories and research section out of the In Western cultures section, I ask why. How would that be a better setup? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The formulation "Child sexuality is concerned with..." is very unlucky at best - it is missing separation of object and subject. So what is this article about? Or what is Child sexuality about? So at the very least something like The term Child sexuality is used to denote needs to enter the scene. -- Richiez (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to you rewording the WP:Lead sentence. For reasons noted at the WP:Refers essay, I'd rather avoid beginning with "is a term for" wording, though. This article is not about the term; we can, however, specify what the term might denote after we open with a good WP:Lead sentence. And it's fine to have a Definitions section if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be worked around like eg "Development of sexuality is integral part of the development and maturation of children. A range of sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty, but before full sexual maturity is established. The development of child sexuality is influenced by social and cultural aspects. The concept of child sexuality also played an important role in the classical psychoanalysis." Richiez (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with that wording; and like WP:BOLDTITLE notes, we can forgo bolding the title when appropriate. This seems like an okay case to forgo bolding the title. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done that, also changed "during puberty" into "during early puberty" (I think there are enough other articles concerning adolescent sexuality) and added the bit about cultural perception. Do not have any opinion on boldtitle or how heavily it should be wikilinked. Richiez (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that Breno bolded the title. Breno, since you did that and are bolding other titles (I looked at your contributions), make sure that you are aware of what WP:BOLDTITLE states about bolding the title not always being needed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

POV?

This article seems rather opinionated to me. Can someone look at this? TheDracologist (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

deleted Ralph Linton quote

Deleted supposed quote by Ralph Linton that was NOT in cited source. Quote was previously attributed to one of his books, but I could not find it there either. The quote has been floating around this article for several years but it is not the only part of The Marques section which seems to be of dubious nature (history of article reveals other quotes have previously been challenged and removed). Would strongly recommend renewed scrutiny of the entire section Wickedjacob (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: upon finding another completely fabricated quote, I have removed the entire section, which seems to have been originated (not in name but in content) by a single IP back in 2013.

Sources where the quotes should have been found are online and easily checkable. You will see that not only are the quotes not found, but the subject of child sexuality is not even particularly discussed.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_39353 https://books.google.com/books?id=eC85AAAAIAAJ&dq=Marquesan+Culture+ralph+linton http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1925.27.3.02a00160/epdf

Wickedjacob (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709125251/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/kotb2.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/kotb2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327222948/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n5_v56/ai_18640605/pg_1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n5_v56/ai_18640605/pg_1

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Child sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714155218/http://www.taasa.org/library/pdfs/TAASALibrary176.pdf to http://www.taasa.org/library/pdfs/TAASALibrary176.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111183707/http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/psy346k/frohlich/lectures/history%20of%20sex.ppt to http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy346K/Frohlich/Lectures/history%20of%20sex.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907055027/http://www.parentkidsright.com/pt-sexplay.html to http://parentkidsright.com/pt-sexplay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905110554/http://www.ces.purdue.edu/providerparent/Health-Safety/WhenChildren%27sPlay.htm to http://www.ces.purdue.edu/providerparent/Health-Safety/WhenChildren%27sPlay.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013220836/http://www.enotalone.com/article/2479.html to http://www.enotalone.com/article/2479.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061202220921/http://www.plannedparenthood.org/central-ohio/sexuality-development.htm to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/central-ohio/sexuality-development.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/TAHITI.HTML

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212143625/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/cont-akchild.html to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/cont-akchild.html

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

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

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

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

Planned cleanup

As with most articles, I encountered this one while following links from a related article, in this case Nudity, which has a section on child sexual development that I wanted to wikilink. Since I consider myself to be an expert in psychology I will do some cleanup, beginning by removing the "expert needed" tag placed in 2013 (?!) which seems to have had little effect. I will then remove the content that is off-topic, being about adult sexuality.

Usually I would contact any current editors before "bold" edits, but there do not appear to have been any for years. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

First pass, lots of changes. The lede section is surprisingly good, however.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Collected content which had been dispersed into relevant subsections. Needs some consolidation and sorting out.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm one of the watchers of the article. Legitimus is another. Sometimes...one can assess who watches the article by looking at a few pages in the edit history or via the page statistics. As with other sexuality and psychology topics, I have extensive knowledge on this topic, but it's one of the articles I hadn't yet gotten around to significantly improving. You did make drastic changes without first waiting at least a day or two for feedback. But you have improved the article, and I appreciate that.

No need to ping me when you reply since I watch this article and prefer not to be pinged to articles I watch. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, improvement of articles is the point. I did not think of checking for watchers, only recent activity as indicative of an active interest.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting into Western and non-Western?

This approach seems like a wild oversimplification, to me.

I've already added a 'globalise' tag to the 'In Western cultures' section, because it exclusively refers to the USA, not the other countries comprising 'the West'. But beyond that, what is the thinking between dividing this article in such a way? Drawing a line between Western and non-Western cultures? By doing so, it's implying there is some kind of consensus within countries in The West, and within countries outside The West, when there is surely a huge diversity of opinion, history and cultural across both? How can you adequately summarise opinions on child sexuality in 'non-Western culture', considering countries outside of 'the West' include Nigeria, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.? It simply seems like an unhelpful way to structure the article, to me. 88.109.65.152 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in some time, but it occurs to me the division of "Western" and "Non-Western" may have been done by editors acting in bad faith. To explain, adult child predators frequently like to reference practices in "non-western" or tribal cultures to argue their behavior is normal. While the section does need globalization (with strong sources), I think it could be one section organized in a more logical fashion.Legitimus (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The sections dividing content between Western and non-Western were in place a month ago when I first encounter this article and did my cleanup edits noted above. I did not change this structure as there are many articles on global topics divided in this way, with no implication of homogeneity within the two broad categories created. The articles Western world and Western culture imply no consensus, but only a shared history, the current cultures having been derived from the per-colonial cultures of Europe. This creates an arbitrary "non-West" having little in common except being colonized by the West. If WP has a truly global, unbiased way of categorizing content regarding the behavior of human beings, I have not seen it. The NPOV policy is of little help, since each academic discipline has its own categories and definitions. Social science research is generally done within one culture, and there is rarely a reliable source which points out the bias in another equally reliable source.

I will likely restore the deleted content previously in the "non-Western" section, since it is not "hearsay" but standard anthropological research, and should be labeled as such. I will look for a source that balances this often colonial view.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Western and non-Western cultures" are typical designations used on Wikipedia and are often helpful. Removing them can lead readers to think that certain beliefs or practices are common throughout the world when, in actuality, they only apply to certain parts of the world. Since child sexual predators were mentioned above, I will note here that the "make it seem like it's more common than it is" tactic has been used on Wikipedia by child sexual predators.

As for Template:Globalize, it tells us, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." So an editor is not supposed to add this tag simply because that editor wants information on other countries. There has to actually be other information on those other countries.

I see that Legitimus removed some material and that WriterArtistDC restored it. I'd have to look at the material closely, maybe at other sources, and think over some things to form a solid opinion on that. Crossroads, as you are another person who edits in this area, any thoughts on the above matters? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post to fix typos. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen - Both Legitimus and Crossroads have now deleted content that is supported by what appears to me to be standard references to ethnographic studies. This deletion is apparently based upon the editor's personal opinions of such sources; "hearsay" by one, "cherry-picking" by the other. While I have my own reservations regarding ethnography, I see no reason to question these sources. Yet I do not want to be accused of edit warring for restoring the content a second time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've re-cut the anthropological section. I've also removed the IP's globalize tag per Flyer22 Frozen's reasoning, which is how I feel about that tag.

The anthropological stuff has several issues. Foremost, it is almost all based on WP:Primary sources - that is, the ethnographies themselves. How do we know these are representative of "other cultures"? We don't. They probably are not. We had 5 cultures listed out of the many thousands that must exist. And I note that the ones we had were all about how pre-pubescent sexual activity was supposedly normal (it even said "encouraged" twice). As I said, it is very possible that these were cherry-picked. And if "other cultures" are not covered by secondary sources, we should not do so either. Ethnographic data is often subjective and based on narrative rather than systematic, quantitative data, so it may not be covered by secondary sources.

The one source that was secondary was this, but I have serious WP:DUE and WP:PROFRINGE concerns about that. The author, Diederik F. Janssen, believes that paraphilias are just social constructs that reflect social norms rather than actual pathology, as Skye Stephens and Michael C. Seto note here. That is of course totally fringe. Here Janssen claims, sex offence is simply a banal battle between a resourceful conspiracy of social conformists ("society") and the incidental erotic dissidents it loves to hate. And I note that one of the authors that Janssen cites in the source that we had here was Edward Brongersma, a pro-pedophilia activist.

With that, there is nothing left that is worth re-adding. Stuff from non-Western cultures is not needed anyway, if quality research in that regard doesn't exist. We just relay what high-quality secondary sources say. If researchers have not covered other cultures very well, due to the heavy challenges involved, then that's what we have to work with. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse and sexual behavior problems

My edits were reverted due to them being a big change. I understand this. Let me please point out why I made the edits I did.

I also want to admit that I accidentally removed a portion of the section that I did not mean to remove, so thank you for reverting my edit and bringing back these parts.

As for the part I intentionally removed and replaced, the current section "Sex abuse" states:

"Children who have been the victim of child sexual abuse sometimes display overly sexualized behavior,[33][34] which may be defined as expressed behavior that is non-normative for the culture. Typical symptomatic behaviors may include excessive or public masturbation and coercing, manipulating or tricking other children into non-consensual or unwanted sexual activities, also referred to as "child-on-child sexual abuse". Sexualized behavior is thought to constitute the best indication that a child has been sexually abused.[33]

Children who exhibit sexualized behavior may also have other behavioral problems.[34] Other symptoms of child sexual abuse may include manifestations of post-traumatic stress in younger children; fear, aggression, and nightmares in young school-age children; and depression in older children.[33]"

This information is very misleading, outdated, and not clinically accurate. I believe the data I provided in my edits were more than enough to prove why, but I will explain it here anyway.

The thesis of the original piece is clearly that sexual behavior problems are a strong indicator of abuse; however, this conjecture is extremely unfounded and not supported by current research. I'll go through it piece-by-piece.

First off, and most-importantly, ALL of the citations in the section I quoted above came from one single research article, which is written as "cited in Larsson, 2000" after a string of other studies that were cited in this one study that the original contributer to this section of the Wikipedia page did not even bother to read and cite directly. This is ONE STUDY. In my edits, I cited over DOZEN different studies to support my claims, and the majority of them were more-recent and higher-quality than the one study cited in the original section.

Second, the statement "Children who have been the victim of child sexual abuse sometimes display overly sexualized behavior." This is technically true; however, the word "sometimes" is overly vague and unhelpful. In my edits, I provided a statistic instead: "Using the CSBI to diagnose child sexual abuse would result in approximately two-thirds of abused children being missed." I cited this to a 2009 study that found that only 1/3 of children who are sexually abused exhibit sexual behavior problems (https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.164) and a 2018 systematic review that affirmed the same results (https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477215).

The statement "Sexualized behavior is thought to constitute the best indication that a child has been sexually abused" is blatantly false. The same 2018 systematic review stated (https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477215): "Until more research is done, the CSBI should not be used on its own to differentiate between sexually abused and non-abused children." This is a very clear message that sexual behavior by itself is NOT a clear indication that a child has been sexually abused; in fact, the same study found that using sexual behavior alone to diagnose sexual abuse would lead to more than half of non-abused children being FALSELY labeled as victims of abuse (https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477215). I also cited several other studies that were in support of this conclusion.

In all, I wrote:

"Current research shows that there may be a correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems in childhood but that sexual behavior problems are not a consistent indicator that a child has been sexually abused: In a 2018 systematic review using the Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI; a tool used to indirectly measure children's sexual behaviors) to assess a possible correlation between child sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems, the authors concluded "Until more research is done, the CSBI should not be used on its own to differentiate between sexually abused and non-abused children."[6] Using the CSBI to diagnose child sexual abuse would result in approximately two-thirds of abused children being missed[7] and more than half of non-abused children being falsely labeled as victims of abuse.[8]

An earlier study found no significant relationship between sexual behavior problems and the diagnosis of sexual abuse in children.[9] Two studies found that, although there was a correlation between abuse and sexual behavior problems, there was no specific behavior that was correlated.[10][11] Other studies have found a significant correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems;[12][13] however, these studies are not clearly indicative of cause because it is possible that non-abused children with sexual behavior problems are more-susceptible to being abused;[14] and because studies have shown that parental attitude towards child sexuality[15][16] and cultural practices such as co-sleeping,[17] familial affection,[18] and family nudity[19] are also significantly correlated with sexual behavior problems."

If you have any doubts about any of my statements, PLEASE review the 16 citations I provided.

I'm sorry if I formatted anything wrong in this talk post; I'm an expert in the study of child sexuality, not in posting on Wikipedia.

Childsexualityinfo (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert but this article is both medical in nature and has a troubled history, so changes are held to a higher standard. Especially when the edits are made by a brand new account that displays a fair bit of experience with Wikipedia's formatting conventions.

Reading over your proposal, the sources and statements appear to be ok. I will take some time to review the sources and I hope other editor's will too. Keep in mind the synthesis rule on sources: The source has to support the statement fairly directly; the writer can't make a significant inference.Legitimus (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what Legitimus said, you should work on your material so it relies on WP:Secondary sources - literature reviews and the like - and not so much on WP:Primary sources. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:Scholarship to see why, and to have what this means explained in more detail. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we really don't have many recent literature reviews or meta-analyses on the subject (it is a rather under-studied subject). The main point of what I said (that child sexual behavior problems are not necessarily a strong indicator of sexual abuse) is directly supported by a 2018 systematic review, which is still the largest and highest-quality study I have seen on the subject: https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477215 . I am still aware that this isn't the best data, which is why I opted to give different perspectives from different studies in the second paragraph.

I added a description of what "problematic" sexual behaviors are, according to research. I polished up some statements too, hopefully making them less-biased, and removed one source that was fairly low-quality (i.e., it did not provide much relevant evidence in my opinion). I also added information about a couple other things that sexual behavior problems are correlated with and tried to re-organize it in a way that would make it a little bit easier to read. In all, this is the new passage:

"Sexual behaviors that are considered problematic include those that are violent or coercive (e.g., forcing another child to engage in unwanted sexual activity), those that cause harm to the child's self or others, and those that become consistently disruptive to daily activities (e.g., interrupting the child's ability to eat meals, play with other kids, etc).[20][21] Current research shows that there may be a correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems in childhood but that sexual behavior problems are not a consistent indicator that a child has been sexually abused: In a 2018 systematic review using the Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI; a tool used to indirectly measure children's sexual behaviors) to assess a possible correlation between child sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems, the authors concluded "Until more research is done, the CSBI should not be used on its own to differentiate between sexually abused and non-abused children."[22] Using the CSBI to diagnose child sexual abuse would result in approximately two-thirds of abused children being missed and more than half of non-abused children being falsely labeled as victims of abuse.[23]

An earlier study found no significant relationship between sexual behavior problems and the diagnosis of sexual abuse in children.[24] Two studies found that, although there was a correlation between abuse and sexual behavior problems, there was no specific behavior that was correlated.[25][26] Other studies have found a significant correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems;[27][28] however, these are all correlation studies and are not necessarily indicative of causation (see [29]). Other studies on child sexual behaviors have shown that sexual behavior problems are also significantly correlated with parental attitude towards child sexuality;[30][31] cultural practices such as co-sleeping, familial affection, and family nudity;[32][33][34] intra-parental violence and modeling of coercive behaviors;[35][36] and general behavior problems.[37]"

Please do feel free to review everything I wrote and double-check that all of my citations match up correctly (it's tedious dealing with this many citations on a platform that I'm not overly familiar with yet). Thanks all for the feedback and for helping me. Childsexualityinfo (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look this over. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing my proposal again, I believe that it would be more accurate to say in the second paragraph: "[...] Other studies have shown that children's sexual behaviors (including sexual behavior problems) are also significantly correlated with parental attitude..." instead of what's currently written: "[...] Other studies on child sexual behaviors have shown that sexual behavior problems are also significantly correlated with parental attitude..." (changes are bolded only so it's easier to see what was changed).

I believe that this change is necessary in the interest of staying as non-biased as possible because not all of the studies I cited used the same definition for what "sexual behavior problems" actually are (i.e., some studies used definitions similar to the one I gave, but others recorded a general increase in certain sexual behaviors as being problematic).

In all, this would make the edited section as follows:

"Sexual behaviors that are considered problematic include those that are violent or coercive (e.g., forcing another child to engage in unwanted sexual activity), those that cause harm to the child's self or others, and those that become consistently disruptive to daily activities (e.g., interrupting the child's ability to eat meals, play with other kids, etc).[38][39] Current research shows that there may be a correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems in childhood but that sexual behavior problems are not a consistent indicator that a child has been sexually abused: In a 2018 systematic review using the Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI; a tool used to indirectly measure children's sexual behaviors) to assess a possible correlation between child sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems, the authors concluded "Until more research is done, the CSBI should not be used on its own to differentiate between sexually abused and non-abused children."[40] Using the CSBI to diagnose child sexual abuse would result in approximately two-thirds of abused children being missed and more than half of non-abused children being falsely labeled as victims of abuse.[41]

An earlier study found no significant relationship between sexual behavior problems and the diagnosis of sexual abuse in children.[42] Two studies found that, although there was a correlation between abuse and sexual behavior problems, there was no specific behavior that was correlated.[43][44] Other studies have found a significant correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior problems;[45][46] however, these are all correlation studies and are not necessarily indicative of causation (see [47]). Other studies have shown that children's sexual behaviors (including sexual behavior problems) are also significantly correlated with parental attitude towards child sexuality;[48][49] cultural practices such as co-sleeping, familial affection, and family nudity;[50][51][52] intra-parental violence and modeling of coercive behaviors;[53][54] and general behavior problems.[55]"

I apologize if reposting the entire section again seems obnoxious. I'm just trying to make it easier to see what was changed and where. Childsexualityinfo (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Freudian theory - rejected or controversial?

I edited the article to indicate that Freud's ideas about psychosexual development and the Oedipus complex were controversial, instead of the previous language that indicated that they are no longer considered valid. The articles on Freud and psychoanalysis are written with a point of view that acknowledges psychodynamic thought as an ongoing point of contention in psychiatry, psychology, and related fields, rather than a theory that has been strongly disproven. It seems irresponsible to me to cite a single source as evidence that these theories are false when there continues to be a debate around them. Additionally, the source cited does not even mention Freud's theories as being rejected! On the contrary, it enumerates them among historical perspectives on child development that are still relevant in the current discourse. I believe the article's phrasing should better reflect this state of affairs, and describe Freud's theories as controversial but influential. If the current language is to be kept, I think there needs to be more (and better) evidence that his ideas are now indeed totally rejected - a claim which I believe is too strong to make. TherapeuticShmerapeutic (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)TherapeuticShmerapeutic

Legitimus, as someone who watches this page and has relevant knowledge of the topic, any thoughts on this? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the issue here seem to be the general opinion of the psychiatric community, rather than the concept itself, I think the best way forward is to seek suitable sources. When referring to general consensus, I would contend the most reliable sources are going to be university textbooks on psychology and psychiatry. I will see what I can find tomorrow.Legitimus (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is some information I was able to find in of Kalat's Introduction to Psychology, a common textbook now it its 11th Edition. The book does discuss and detail Freud psychosexual development theories, but also puts them in context, stating "Right or wrong, Freud’s theory is so widely known that you should understand it." p. 453.

Here are some more quotations:

• "Developmental psychologists report that they almost never see evidence of an Oedipus Complex in children. Although some psychoanalysts still see merit in the idea (Luborsky & Barrett, 2006), most put little emphasis on it." p.452

• "The idea of fixation at various stages, central to much of Freud’s thinking, is difficult to test (Grünbaum, 1986; Popper, 1986). In fact, Freud resisted any attempt to test his ideas experimentally, insisting that the only relevant data were the observations he made during psychoanalytic sessions. Many of his followers have held the same position, and the result has been alienation from the rest of psychology (Chiesa, 2010)" p.454

• "How much credit should we give Freud? he was right that people have conflicting impulses, but that idea was hardly original with him. Yes, people have unconscious thoughts and feelings. However, that idea too had been around before Freud. Freud’s elaboration on that idea was to say that the unconscious developed mostly from repressed sexual thoughts, such as boys’ fear of losing the penis and girls’ wish to have a penis (Borch-Jacobsen & Shamdasani, 2012; Kramer, 2006). The part that is original to Freud is the part that is most doubtful. Later psychologists discovered unconscious processes in implicit memories, subliminal perception, and so forth, but these processes are far different from the type of unconscious processes Freud emphasized." p.455

Legitimus (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this psychology textbook offers a fair view of most psychologists' take on Freud's theories, but would nitpick slightly when it says that "most [psychoanalysts] put little emphasis on [the Oedipus complex]." To me, this source is a good reflection of general opinions held in psychology, but not a totally authoritative source on current psychoanalytic thinking. I would feel comfortable if the article indicated that Freud's ideas are no longer embraced by most mental health professionals (which is a little mushy, but generally accurate, and difficult to get more precise) but remain influential within psychodynamic thought. I would also add that it may not be necessary for the article to discuss the validity of Freud's ideas at all. The passage could read: "Freud was one of the first researchers to seriously study child sexuality, and his acknowledgment of its existence was a significant change." This sidesteps the issue entirely.TherapeuticShmerapeutic (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Freud is not controversial, just rejected, but historically important. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Objective rationale for universal disapproval of expression of child sexuality is needed

That children ought not engage in [partnered] sexual activity - engage in 'sex lives' - is implied universally, however a rationale for why this should be so is never explicitly stated. It warrants proper exposition. Is there a rationale? If so, what is it? If not, why not? 122.151.210.84 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A rationale for why statutory rape is bad? I'm legitimately not sure I'm following. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)