Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 1

message: Whoa, whoa, whoa -- male circumcision as sexual abuse?
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh yes, for sure we should rate sites openly propagating sex with children higher.  Get-back-world-respect 01:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Links in articles related to child sexual abuse

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Pedophilia]] related sites and dubious users

message: 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)
thread_title: Translation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WARNING

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Being scared of therapy and characterizing prevention as moral panic is silly. Get-back-world-respect 14:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  tendentious edits in favour of abusers by Paranoid 

message: I've seen this red link in a few of the articles I've perused today and was hoping I might coax somebody with more knowledge of the subject to write a small article on it. I think it would be useful. Thought this might be the best place to ask. --DanielCD 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple consent

message: Some of the author names in the refs section are a little confusing, like "Juliette D. G. Goldman". Is this one name or did something get deleted somewhere? The last names should go first and those used to alphabetize. I believe they should be in alphabetical order. Just some housekeeping if anyone is interested... --DanielCD 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Also, somewhat down in the article: "adult forces or coerces sex on a prepubescent minor" is given as a simple definition. However, there are many times where the child actually freely engages the activity, being "led" into it gently rather than being coerced. Other times they can be passive, not taking part, but not resisting either (they may be confused, not sure what's going on or what to do as it's outside the realm of their experience). The child is unaware of the gravity or consequences of what's happening and may treat it like any new experience, though, unknown to the child, the psychological consequences of the abuse will surface later. 
This is not addressing the question of whether such abuse is always harmful. Even if there are cases where it ends up not causing any harm, the question is really not relevant to the question of the abusive nature of the adult's actions, as the abuser can never know the effects beforehand, and hence the idea that "it doesnt always cause harm" can't excuse any action of this type. Even if the child is not coerced in any way and seems unaffected, it will take time to see the real effects.
The lack of coercion or force does not make it any less abuse and the def should likely be amended in this regard. I didn't make any change to it though as I want to see what others think. I didn't read the whole article word for word and may have missed something. --DanielCD 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I refuse to unquestioningly believe that sexual stimulation in and of itself necessarily harms the psyche of minors and tend to think that factors which tend to or necessarily accompany molestation, including an inevitable power imbalance which would be particularly present for prepubescents, are more to blame for actual damage to the child's psychological condition. I also think that the kind of parental negligence and poor parent-child communication which would allow molestation to pass unnoticed for a number of years probably has as much to do with psychological maladjustment as the actions of the offender. Other than the clear and present power imbalance, I wouldn't think that the psychological effect of sexuality on minors would differ much from the effect of the parallel acts on adults ranging from unwanted advances, aggressive seduction, rape, exploitation of impaired or uninformed judgement, and secrecy, which I may need to remind some of you are, together, both far and away more likely than informed and open consent except under particularly strange circumstances and quite detrimental enough to satisfy one's desire to find legitimate fault in the behavior. Personally, I think the fact that people react emotionally and vengefully to the very idea of child-adult sex is deplorable, and I think that more time should be spent rationally examining the links between molestation and its consequences and working out how to improve the lot of the kids. Too much time is spent hating the offender, and too little is invested in figuring out what to do with the kids.
On that note, the inability of some people to tell the difference between a mere deviant who just got caught porking a sixth-grader and a jerk who regularly beats and rapes his eleven year old step-daughter during drunken rages is also disturbing. One needs a psychiatrist, and the other needs a bullet; work out for yourself which is which, and attempt not to confound the two in the future. Disturbing as you might find the deviant, it's as unjust and malproductive to say that the deviant is as guilty as the abuser as it would be to say that the abuser is as innocent as the deviant, and there are obvious reasons that they should be treated differently from one another. If nothing else, we'd be freer to steamroll the real scum.
Returning to my original point, more fully understanding the actual reasons for the harmful consequences of molestation would make us more able to provide adequate treatment for the kids themselves. I honestly think that, if the subject is examined closely enough, we'll discover that having one's first orgasm at eight isn't going to turn one suicidal six years later all by itself.
Anonymous Bastard #1, aka 4.88.2.115 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was sexually abused myself, and I can personally say that you are right and wrong. Studies have shown sexual stimulation in childhood has led to brain damage of several functions of the brain, yet, I do think there is way to much stigma surrounding kids and sexual experimentation as well. Science has proven you very wrong, nonetheless. I think the stigma surrounding girls who have the physical development, say around 15 or so, can be a little stupid. I am also an advocate that younger sexual education would help reduce sexual abuse significantly. --202.164.193.221 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite these studies?  It would be interesting to count the number of times I brain-damaged myself before I reached the age of consent....St. Jimmy 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual cause of harm

message: The title is POV (biased). The term and concept of "Child sexual abuse" should be dealt with in an article lacking a POV title. Or else only the use of the term should be in an article with the title "Child sexual abuse". Discussing behavior that in some cultures is not "abuse" should not be in an article with "abuse" in its title. Imagine if Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy were entitled Freedom of expression abuse ? WAS 4.250 18:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. People have different ideas about what constitutes abuse, and no definition could be complete without some such discussion. I completely fail to see how the provided examples apply. It would be nice if everything was convenient and tidy, but the world isn't so clean cut.   --DanielCD 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In a nutshell, what's being asked for here is an a priori definition of CSA. Mental constructs aren't going to exist prior to human experience. And to say we can't discuss the varieties of human experience regarding the issue... Whose definition are we going to use? --DanielCD 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV title

message: I'm refactoring the second paragraph, and I can't fit it all in an edit summary, so. Here's the original paragraph:
------
It has a special status among forms of abuse, because it includes not only 
*a) what is considered sexual abuse between adults, but also 
*b) all forms of sexual activity involving children and adults as partners, even if a child gives simple consent    (see Definition based on Informed Consent).  
-----
Problems with this paragraph:
*General formatting.
*The  reference is pretty much a non-sequiter, it describes doctor-patient relationships and and does not well define the concepts of "simple consent" and "informed consent". Out it goes.
*The internal link Definition based on Informed Consent is broken, as Sexual abuse no longer has (if it did) a section called "Definition based on Informed Consent". (This is one reason why linking to article sections is to be avoided if possible). Out it goes.
*Ditto, the link to sexual abuse goes to a non-existant section. Delinkified.
*The link for "simple consent" goes to a page at the IPCE (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation) site. It does give a fairly good definition of simple vs. informed consent, but it's also a long convoluted article for a definition, and its also (I would gather) a POV site, which is fine for a citation but problematical for a definition. What's needed here is a good internal Wiki definition, which there is not, although the articles Informed consent, Consent, and Consent (criminal) discuss this somewhat. So, since there's no handy definition for simple consent, and the passage "even if a child gives simple consent" is a level of detail that doesn't really need to be in the opening section, out it goes.
*As to "It has a special status...". It doesn't really have a special status, it's a form of status offense, an age-related offense (underage drinking drinking, driving, etc.), of which there are many. Status offense have their corollary in what I guess would be called "child protection laws" -- it's a status offense for a minor to drink alcohol; it's a child protection law (or whatever) that you can't give alcohol to a minor. That's law-talk; what the editor is trying to say (I think) is that it's special among forms of sexual abuse. But there aren't that many forms of sexual abuse anyway. So I reworded it somewhat.
Thus giving us:
------
It is different from other forms of sexual abuse, because it includes not only what would be considered sexual abuse between adults, but also forms of sexual activity between children and adults that would not be considered abusive if performed by two consenting adults.
which can be condensed with no loss to:
It is different from other forms of sexual abuse in that it includes  forms of sexual activity between children and adults that would not be considered abusive if performed by two consenting adults.
Herostratus 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herostratus, you have a very very keen mind. I'm going to try to help out and may have some space to cite my additions etc. tomorrow. Great work, really.  --DanielCD 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent wording. FloNight talk  05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph refactoring 

message: :This is commonly characterized among psychologists as a "lack of maturity".
This way of putting it is, I think, rather too simplistic. The lack of "maturity" is generally confined to certain aspects of the personality, not to the entire person. I'll try to suggest something soon. Comments very welcome. --DanielCD 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maturity

message: Pederasty in the Islamic lands - this article has some info on this, but I haven't looked at it in relation to the statement I've so far failed to cite. --DanielCD 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other societies, however, in which adult/adult homosexuality is considered criminally and morally offensive behavior, but child/adult heterosexual relations are viewed as acceptable. In Arab societies, due to the taboos regarding man-woman contacts, aspects of homosexuality between men and boys has historically had some cultural acceptance.
I removed this from the article for now. I think this small section needs some rethinking. Any comments/opinions welcome. --DanielCD 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Innocence of children
This section is a little odd as well. There is a large discussion out there about the idea of "innocence" and how it has changed over the centuries. Is this idea a modern invention, a product of the Victorian age? It may be dealing more with affect than a real construct (it may be more of a sentimentality than a reality). Or is it? --DanielCD 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to homosexuality 

message: How does someone, such as a doctor, tell that a child's been sexually abused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacegirl92 (talk • contribs) 
:Sometimes: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic369.htm 24.224.153.40 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there physical evidence? 

message: Per Talk:Child sexual abuse#sources above, it's time and past to clean out the unsourced material. I'll start by ((fact)) tagging all the material, then shortly remove it if its not sourced, moving it the section Sources III - Removed Unsourced Material, below. Of course it'll also be in the page history.
Several passages are alreay ((fact))-tagged so I'll start with them. Herostratus 11:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources II 

message: The number of female offenders is unknown but is usually reported to be between 10% and 20%, although in some studies it was found to be as high as 70% due to concealment, double standards and social taboos about reporting female-perpetrated sex offenses.  -- Removed Herostratus 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that we should remove all of the charges against Scooter Libby too? Criminal charges are public information, and are readily verifiable. Anyway, I disagree with your reasoning but I agree with your conclusion. I had been thinking Doyle should be remoevd because he is not charged with any form of child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but persons accused of child sexual abuse are sometimes treated with greater circumspection, since they might be lynched or whatever before their guilt is determined. But as you say, moot. Herostratus 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for motivating me, but please don't remove anything else yet. I'll try to work on it. 24.224.153.40 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I only removed the ((fact))-tagged stuff because two other editors besides myself had agreed that article has various problems and that removing unsourced material was a good idea, given the fraught nature of the subject, and we announced this on the talk page (see above) and waited a couple weeks. Plus the material removed is saved above, could be restored if source found (although you'd have to check the page history to find where it went.) Right, OK, I won't remove any more material for at least a week. Herostratus 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources III:Removed Unsourced Material 

message: This is from the abstract of a study:
:The data suggest that 15 (68%) of the heterosexual pedophiles preferred fondling and mutual masturbation with children, while 7 others (32%) were more aroused by scenes depicting forced penetration (both digital and genital), contrary to their initial self-reports.
I don't understand what kind of slides they would use to ascertain this. Do they show the offenders child porn? 24.224.153.40 04:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tell us which study it'd help. -Will Beback 05:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Aggression and erotic attraction toward children in incestuous and pedophilic men,"  Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1(3), 417-441. I also read while searching for references that they show offenders pictures of prepubescent girls posed erotically. Weird. 24.224.153.40 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plethysmography slides

message: This was removed with a comment saying basically "the sources are talking about physical abuse, not sexual abuse". I'm not seeing that at all. The first source certainly includes non-sexual abuse, but not solely or even primarily, e.g.: 
*"Slightly more than half reported having been abused physically or sexually, or both, as children. Compared with patients who reported no ill-treatment, average checklist scores were 38 percent greater in the patients with physical (but not sexual) abuse and 49 percent higher in the patients with sexual (but not other physical) mistreatment. Patients who acknowledged both physical and sexual abuse had average scores 113 percent higher than patients reporting none."
*"...research team sought to ascertain whether childhood physical, sexual or psychological abuse was associated with brain-wave abnormalities...  Our findings dovetailed with a 1978 EEG study of adults who were victims of incest."
*"...compared MRI scans of 17 adult survivors of childhood physical or sexual abuse..."
*"...found left hippocampal abnormalities in 21 adult women who had been sexually abused as children..."
This is going less than halfway down in the article, I think that's plenty of examples. The second source I'm not able to access at this time, I don't know if it's down or my puter is cranky or what. Herostratus 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: last paragraph of section "Effects of sexual abuse on minors" 

message: "Because of the lack of a universal definition, the research on CSA is open both to personal biases of the researchers and of their critics."
Sheesh, there's at least three serious problems with that sentence:
*Is research on CSA "open to the personal biases of the researchers" significantly more that is the case of (say) research on the causes of poverty? Or research on the economic effects of tax cuts? Or research in any number of areas that are not hard science? If it isn't, it doesn't need to be said. If it is, please cite.
*Even if it can be verified that CSA research especially attracts or rewards third-rate researchers and slapdash research methods, is the cause the lack of a universal definition? Or is it something else -- lack of funding, relatively low salaries, lack of prestige, or whatever?
*And how, exactly, is the lack of "universal definition" a problem? In our articles on economics, we don't have "Some economists posit that a high savings rate is always desirable, but critics point out that 8th-century Baffin Islanders kept their savings in seal skins, and seal skins decay over time, so this cannot said to be universally true." "High mortage rates are generally believed to cause house prices to rise, but critics point out that European Lobsters (Homarus gammarus) do not have mortages, and indeed do not have homes, being simple sea-floor-dwelling arthopods of the family Nephropidae. So this doesn't apply to them and is thus not universally applicable." Obviously a researcher correlating (say) reported CSA levels with suicide rates for various current American states doesn't have to worry whether the definition of CSA she is using is valid for 3rd-Century Lusitania. Herostratus 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last sentence of  "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings" 

message: I'm not at all nuts about this entire section as written, but the last para. for starters seems quite unneccesary:
Last paragraph: "In some South Pacific island cultures, such as the Sambia of Papua New Guinea, one of the primary rituals of initiation for boys involves having them ingest semen, which they consider to be the literal essence of manhood. The boys obtain semen by fellating older boys who have already passed through the initiation. Upon initiation into higher stages, the roles are reversed, making the fellator the fellated. Ritual fellatio is somewhat common throughout southeastern Papua New Guinea but has been studied the most in the Sambia (Herdt 1982)."   
*Err, what has this to do with the price of eggs? Its all very interesting I'm sure but how far off track do want to get here? Isn't this quite a bit too much detail for a topic that is at least mostly if not completely out of place in this article. Doesn't this belong in an article on Oceanic culture or Coming of age or something? 
*The three citations make a nice little row, but the last two at least look suspicious (one is glbtq.com, the other globalgayz.com). Are these scholarly, neutral sources?  That's not required for entries in the External links section, but for actual sources it's recommended. I'm not saying they're not OK but it needs to be checked.
"...sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece and feudal Japan..."
*It's usually not a good sign when, without looking at the edit history, you know who made a particular edit (hi User:Haiduc!). This particular point has probably not been inserted into the article St. Louis Browns. But without checking, I can't be sure ("In 1954, the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles. The relationship between this and that fact that sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men were sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece and feudal Japan has not been studied and thus remains neither proven nor disproven..."'). (Just raggin' you User:Haiduc! You know I love ya!) Herostratus 13:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last para. of "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings" 

message: Removed sentence Sexual relations between adults and minors in western society remain controversial. It is unsourced and false. Sexual relations between adults and minors is illegal. This is clearly spelled out in law. Today western society openly discusses these cases instead of sweeping them under the rug. FloNight talk 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But not everyone agrees with the current state of the law, e.g. the Matthew Koso case.  That makes it controversial, and that should be reflected in some way.  Can we figure out a better substitute for the deleted sentence?  St. Jimmy 11:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You should be careful not to confuse the United States with western societies in general. In countries with lower ages of consent like Canada, the U.K., and Germany, no one bats an eyelash at the idea of a 16-year-old adolescent having consensual sexual contact with an adult. In the current climate in the U.S., on the other hand, many people think adolescents should not have consensual sexual contact with anyone at all of any age, not even other adolescents (cf. Bush's amusing "abstinence-only" approach to sex education). I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans call for raising the age of consent in the U.S. to 35, and I wouldn't be surprised if opinion polls gave them 65% support if they did make such a call. Pais 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is hardly universal.  Many people sympathize with Matthew Koso and Debra Lafave and didn't feel they should've been charged at all.  Bill Maher actually celebrated it on his tv show when charges were dropped against Lafave.  We shouldn't be quick to assume public opinion is settled on an issue with so many complexities. And Pais is correct that the U.S. is somewhat out of step with other Western democracies.  (e.g. when the conservative party took over in Spain in 1996, they raised the age of consent from 12 all the way to 13.)  St. Jimmy 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed more unsourced content

message: would it be considered child sexual abuse if both consenting parties were under 16? how about if one was slightly older than then other, so that for a short period one was 16 while the other was not, for that period is sexual intercourse illegal? would gender be an issue in conviction, ie, the male party is more liable? there are many myths such as these amongst teenagers discovering their sexuality, can anyone shed any light apon them? 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The laws on these matters vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next. It is impossible to add material which would apply to everyone. -Will Beback 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you asking for the answers or suggesting they be added? JayW 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if both consenting parties are under 16... 

message: The sheer amount of them after every modicum of statement is becoming laughable. Skinnyweed 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not US-o-pedia. You're making the article centric and biased towards America. JayW 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Citation needed' tags 

message: I removed this section from the main article, since it was both jarring to the reader (as in, disruptive to flow of article) and seemed extremely poor form to include this much unsourced info in the first place. Please reinsert with sources as they are found. --tjstrf 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced discussion

message: This article (aside from being US centric/not reflecting a worldwide view) also has a very simple contradiction that needs some clarification.  According to the article: 
:"In every state and federal jurisdiction of the United States, the law states that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort."
However, in some states the age of consent is lower at 16 or 17.  The age of majority is 18 everywhere in the USA, so either in some states minors CAN consent to sexual activity or there is some federal law I don't know about.  I've changed it to "under the age of consent".  I think this is an important distinction; if it can mean the difference between being charged with a crime or not it is not trivial.--adamatari 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Contradiction

message: The article currently reads "The great majority of offenders fit into the regressed category. Only between 2-10% percent of all offenders are fixated. (citation needed)". According to a study referred to here, 47% were classified as fixated, 53% regressed. --Kvaks 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regressed v. fixated offenders 

message: I tried to improve the section on the U.S, definition. I do realize that their are statements in the section that need citations and I will try to dig up the citation where I originally got the info from as soon as I can. I would suggest that this article should discuss the distinction that is often made between that sex abuse involving preteen victims and adult/teen sexual activies which may, depending on the age of consent qualify as statutory rape. --Cab88 09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Defintition of child sexual abuse. 

message: From the sexual abuse article: Sexual abuse is defined by the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another.
And yet "Child sexual abuse" is defined as any sexual contact whatsoever between a an adult and a minor (where "minor" differs from state to state and country to country anyway). It doesn't matter if the sex is consensual. It doesn't matter if the minor (again depending on juristiction) sees the sex as a completely positive experience. It doesn't even matter if the minor is on the eve of her 16th birthday in a place where the AOC is 16. It is still, bizarrely, classed as "abuse".
The term abuse is deliberately emotive, so that anyone breaking these taboos can be called an abuser. Any rational argument by the abuser can then be filed away as him/her "trying to justify their abuse". The same lame terms have been used to crush rational argument for decades.
If you look at the word "abuse" in the dictionary, and the adjective "abusive", anyone with a brain can see the vast gulf of difference between the legal terminology and the reality. A case of sex between a minor and an adult is automatically classed as child sexual abuse even if the case is not abusive in any respect.
The real issue is the legal AOC itself and, on a deeper level, the FALSE but immensely popular idea that a "minor" (a classification which varies depending on AOC in different countries) cannot enjoy any sexual contact with an adult without it being "abuse". 
As somebody sexually "abused" (see the loaded term?) in my own childhood, I KNOW this to be utterly false. My sexual experiences did not damage me in the slightest, although the aftermath did, once various witch-hunting adults became involved. I practically had to withstand a form of brainwashing that I'd been the victim of a hideous assault, when in fact everything had been consensual. 
Until the assumption of harm is removed, until children are emancipated to explore sexual experiences with whoever they choose, and until arbitrary AOC laws are abolished in favour of laws only against forced or coerced sex, there is no real hope for any sanity to enter this field. The CSA witch-hunters, with popular backing, will continue to ruin lives for the sake of a date on a birth-certificate. ---Kate
:Have you ever considered editing on subjects like, say, anything you don't have such a strong opinion about? Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so it's not exactly helpful to hear people's rants/sob stories/personal opinions/whatever on the talk page. Unless you are a notable source, your input is utterly non-helpful and indeed detracts from the main goal of this page, improving our verifiable, objective coverage of the subject at hand. Not to be rude or uncivil, but it's totally worthless to make these additions, all they do is stir up trouble. --tjstrf 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Tjstrf (for once - lol). Kate, while I may sympathize about wanting more neutral articles on controversial subjects like this, the talk page is not the place to launch into heated rants that will fall on deaf ears anyway. Let's keep the talk page for discussing specifics on how to keep articles full of NPOV information and devoid of POV/morality politics/etc. I don't mind anyone editing within their areas of interest, so long as the main aim is always NPOV improvement. Btw, I've added a line to address the general area you were talking about, just mentioning the dissent... -Neural 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Abuse 

message: "The majority of experts believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors."
Can anyone even begin to substantiate this claim? As someone interested in this area, from a research angle, this seems very fishy and misleading. I suggest re-wording this line at the very least. -Neural 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very iffy line