Talk:Sexual abuse/Archive-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archived discussion from Talk:Child sexual abuse (later moved to Talk:sexual abuse) from before September 10, 2004.

Contents

Oldest discussion

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

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

Research that backs it up

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

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

"== Underage sex ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

porn link to abuse

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

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

Statistics

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

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

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

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

Links in articles related to child sexual abuse

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

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

Pedophilia related sites and dubious users

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

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

Translation

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

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

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

WARNING

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

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

Statistics

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

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

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


Warning Signs

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

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


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

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

Statistics

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

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

Statistics

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


tendentious edits in favour of abusers by Paranoid

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you wouldn't say that the reaction towards presumably ritual child abuses in day care was normal, would you? Even such respectful authors as Finkelhor spread the rumours because they didn't treat the findings with proper scientific scepticism and because they all too often made ridiculous assumptions on which they based their conclusions. I am not denying that certain activities that are usually understood under CSA happen and are harmful, but being scared of "Child sexual abuse" per se is silly, because it's such a vague concept. Paranoid 13:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Being scared of therapy and characterizing prevention as moral panic is silly. Get-back-world-respect 14:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/x/Talk%7ESexual_abuse_Archive-1_29cd.html"