Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:Child sexual abuse

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Pedophilia and the gay rights movement[edit]

The article says "NAMBLA has never been accepted by the mainstream LGBT community, and has not existed as a functional organization for decades." They weren't expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association until 1994. In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law." In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination." In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end." In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." Etc., etc.

If you look through old issues of the Journal of Homosexuality, you'll find articles such as this one that draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia. There was an era during which there was some overlap between the age of consent reform agenda and the gay rights agenda; for example, a Guardian opinion piece notes, "The PIE was in favour of lowering the age of consent to 10. This, we are now all in accord, is far too young. But age of consent was a huge topic for debate at that time, for a number of reasons. Homosexuals had to be five years older than heterosexuals before they were considered mature enough to consent. That, to our eyes, looks pretty homophobic."[1] In general, there was some overlap between age of consent reform and other forms of sexual liberation; in early 1980s Germany, "Some Greens-allied groups argued at the time that legalizing pedophilia was part of rebuilding postwar German society into something more open and just."[2]

If some gays or leftists supported changes in the age of consent laws decades ago, that's not really all that big a deal. It doesn't mean people who oppose that agenda should refrain from supporting those organizations, any more than people should refrain from voting Democratic because some notable Democrats opposed civil rights laws. What matters is what these parties support today. Therefore, there is no need to whitewash the past. Landmartian (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Castration[edit]

"Some pedophiles, convicted and otherwise, have undergone physical or chemical castration to limit the risk they present to others." It's probably not a large number of them. Landmartian (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Victims without symptoms[edit]

Can we get an explanation of what's dubious about the claim that a lot of victims don't have symptoms? Landmartian (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it relevant that some people are apparently unfazed from being the victim of 'mild pedophilia' (like Richard Dawkins apparently) to the claim that child sexual abuse poses developmental risks? Something being risk-y doesn't mean it'll result in disaster every time. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I know this is anecdotal, but I actually happen to know such a 'unphased victim'. The person (male) seems to have had multiple instances sexual contact with his father and both at the time and now still sees these as positive. Good food for thought, I think. 192.87.54.236 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Well, it's the sort of claim that exonerates wrongdoers. In this case, folks who rape kids.
Also, phrases like "a lot" and "a large minority" aren't especially helpful here.
Finally, it's cited to an article in an unspecified journal from 25 years ago. This makes it inconvenient for readers to verify what the source actually says & how well it tallies with what you're claiming it says. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that journal was Professional psychology, research and practice. Landmartian (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The gay "agenda"[edit]

There actually seems to be the evidence that the ratio of CSA cases with victim of the same sex as abuser to all CSA cases is greater than the ratio of homosexuals to general population. See http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html This of course says nothing about whether adult attracted homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children than adult attracted heterosexuals. I am not sure if the source given in the article supports the claim, currently I'm getting error 404 when attempting to access the source (it would be shame if it was gone permanently). Next, I'm not sure whether most experts agree that CSA offenders don't have adult sexual orientation. The source give is old and judging by the abstract it doesn't seem to support the statement. It says "The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships." This might be roughly read as that about a half of the sample consisted of pedophilic CSA offenders and a half consisted of non-pedophilic CSA offender. (Though one should definitely the article for definitions.) A significant part, maybe a majority of CSA offenders are pedophiles for whom the claim is true. However, a large part (possibly a majority) of CSA offenders are not pedophiles and have adult sexual orientation. --Simgiran (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's do some epistemology![edit]

To find out how sex with adults affects children, we can look to two kinds of evidence: (a) scientific and (b) anecdotal. Within each of these categories is two subcategories: (1) evidence which tends to show it's harmful, and (2) evidence which tends to show it's harmless. Within each subcategory, there is (A) evidence that has been presented, and (B) evidence that hasn't been presented. Within sub-subcategory (A), there's (i) true evidence and (ii) false evidence.

So, just to recap, we have:

  • (a)(1)(A)(i) true published scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (a)(1)(A)(ii) false published scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (a)(1)(B) unpublished scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (a)(2)(A)(i) true published scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids
  • (a)(2)(A)(ii) false published scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids
  • (a)(2)(B) unpublished scientific evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids
  • (b)(1)(A)(i) true published anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (b)(1)(A)(ii) false published anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (b)(1)(B) unpublished anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmful to kids
  • (b)(2)(A)(i) true published anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids
  • (b)(2)(A)(ii) false published anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids
  • (b)(1)(B) unpublished anecdotal evidence that adults having sex with kids is harmless to kids

Let's begin with (a), scientific evidence. Here we have (1)(A) evidence such as that used in support of studies by Roosa, Widom, Levitan, Roth, Messman-Moore, Pereda, and Whealin, which showed the child sexual abuse can cause depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, propensity to further victimization in adulthood, physical injury, and psychological trauma; and (B) evidence that never was gathered, that would have further demonstrated the harms of child sexual abuse. Reasons for not gathering the evidence could include that resources weren't allocated to the studies; that victims didn't come forward because they didn't want to relive the trauma or expose the perpetrator to prosecution, shame, etc. or because they didn't want to bring shame upon themselves as "damaged goods" or because they were worried their story wouldn't be believed. It could be that some study participants don't trust that the information they give will be kept confidential.

We also have (2)(A), evidence such as that used in support in the Rind report. Then there is (B), evidence that never was gathered, perhaps because resources weren't allocated to studies; or because people who had non-harmful childhood sexual experiences with adults didn't want to expose the adult to prosecution, shame, etc.; or because they were worried their story wouldn't be believed. What usually happens when someone says, "When I was a kid, I had a sexual experience with an adult, and I wasn't harmed"? Usually, people will accuse them of (I) being a pedophile trying to excuse his own desires and intentions, or (II) being a victim who is trying to rationalize what happened to him so that he doesn't feel so bad about it.

Whole books have been written purporting to contain (b)(2)(A)(i) anecdotes. These are usually either ignored or regarded as fabricated accounts. In the gay community, we have Edmund White, David Tuller, etc. Then of course there's Grace Dunham. (Lena was about six years older than her sister, which would probably be outside the close-in-age exception in most states.)

Funding for scientific studies is probably more readily available when someone is trying to prove that government intervention is needed, as opposed to not needed, since lots of NGOs stand to gain from getting funded if a problem is identified that the government needs to address. Hardly any special interests have a stake in proving that government intervention is unnecessary.

When evidence is ambiguous or unreliable, we can always say "The burden of proof is on the person who believes that it's safe to engage in a given activity with a child." By that same logic, we could argue a variant of Pascal's Wager and say, "Until you can prove that it's safe to watch cartoons with your kid on Sunday rather than taking him to church, you have an obligation to take him to church. Where is your evidence that he won't go to hell if you don't take him to church?" Any number of activities, we could hypothesize are unsafe for children, and put the burden of proof on adults to prove those activities are safe before they can involve kids in those activities. L's Ideology (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Which system of logic are you using, exactly? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's more a system of categorization, so that the problem can be broken down into more manageable chunks. L's Ideology (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the above to be too manageable. Also, it kinda reminds me of modal logic (or some system with a related syntax). Is it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Pedophilia is one of the biggest taboos ever, therefore it has little to no research aside from criminal activity. Public opinion is the reason for the lack of research.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Child marriage[edit]

It's interesting to look at historical arc leading to banning teens from marrying. Originally, the age of consent only applied when the two people weren't married. The moralists argued, the problem wasn't that young people were having sex with older people; it was that they were having sex outside of marriage. Later, when society began placing less emphasis on the importance of marriage, the problem was redefined as being that young people were having sex at all with older people (regardless of whether they were married). So the modern standard is actually more morally stringent than the old standard.

This contradicts the idea some have that moral standards are being loosened (rather than tightened) over time, as people become more laid back and liberal about what they will accept. Actually, when it comes to what kids are allowed to do (or what people are allowed to do with kids), the moral standards have been tightened considerably. Child labor would be another example. L's Ideology (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)