Talk:Child sexual abuse

	This Crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes This article was edited by some extremely dubious users, so might need a combing through. Some expansion could help; there's certainly more cases of large-scale child abuse. There's also been more prominent instances of woo surrounding this subject since the article was first written. Pizzagate comes to mind.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Sources for the article

• PEDOPAC: America First’s Disturbing Pedophilia Problem
• Down The Rabbit Hole Of Right-wing Pedophile Networks --Opifalko (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is satire material (and potentially hurtful to victims)

One only needs to look at the table of contents for this article to see the bias of "church bad, secular good" here because all of the examples of abuse other than child brides are tied to religious movements, while abuse in daycares and by homosexuals is discarded as "woo." This is the kind of shit that I could see Saturday Night Live or Babylon Bee using to poke fun at internet "SJWs". The dark side of this is that someone who was abused at a daycare or a school could see this as minimization of abuse that happens in secular institutions, especially if they only glance over the first part of the article. This article debunks the notion that clergy are more like to abuse children than others with access to children (actually, they are less likely to do so). I work in education, and I can tell you child sexual abuse cases are not limited to church or any religious movement. 71.215.128.51 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think the article is missing content, you can always, you know, edit it. I doubt anyone would disagree that the article nerds to cover secular cases of child abuse better, and as long as you can provide good sources, you can do it yourself. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not satire. Your own link refutes your talking-point about gay men, by the way and, uses a relatively low estimate for Catholic priests. Our main page about CSA in the Catholic Church has an estimate up to 7 percent, bringing it at least to parity with school teachers. But that parity is likely due to underreporting (it's pretty rich that this PsychologyToday post's response to a new inquiry finding earlier figures were underreporting the extent, is to cite earlier figures like the John Jay report). Schools are mandated, often by law, to report child sexual abuse. Churches and other religious groups most often aren't mandated to. In fact, some may see proposed laws to mandate that they do report CSA as a religious freedom infringement.

There probably would ideally be a section on abuse by school teachers, considering the estimates given. But it's not quite the same since there's not some large-scale systemic coverup, encouraging or at least tolerating wider perpetration. Chillpilled (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chill. There should be a section about school teachers. But comparing them with other cases is a form of false equivalence. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There should also be sections for the Boy Scouts, health care (especially mental health care, but really all pediatrics), Juvenile Justice, and athletic teams. Pretty much anyone the ambulance chasers are going after is a good one to have a section on. But I'm not doing all of that work right now. 71.215.128.51 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The first two examples in the article are "Modern child brides" and "USA Gymnastics". There are many examples in the rest of the of the article which, I suppose, supports your point (If I understand it): when put in a position of power, Catholic (or other) priests are just as likely to abuse children as those not put in power by God. So I guess that we are in agreement that Catholic priests are just as evil as everyone else when given the chance. But I really don't think this is a great defense of the church.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Catholicism is bullshit. But assuming that priests are more likely to be a pedo than anyone else is also bullshit. 71.215.128.51 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Where does the article make this claim?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal is massive. We're talking estimates of hundreds of thousands of victims in both Spain and France, according to some estimates.[1]

That being said, when it comes to the "most likely abuse", according to one study, "the perpetrator usually is a relative, friend, or neighbor."[2] I think the issue with the Catholic church is that their upper org is close-knit and a wee bit secretive, so they've been reluctant to take anything other than an occasional limp action here and there, despite the gravity of the accusations. The Boy Scouts from what I understand had a similar sort of issue. (Not sure about the other religious organizations that have had sexual abuse issues of late, such as the Southern Baptists). The Jerry Sandusky scandal also might be good to include here as it shows some protectionism from a different angle; because this scandal involved the "Religion" of American College Football, there were plenty of people who hemmed and hawed, especially when it came to Sandusky's boss, Penn State head coach Joe Paterno. BobJohnson (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm suddenly reminded of Jimmy Savile. With Savile, English defamation law ended up being a big factor that strongly suppressed people from exposing him. Chillpilled (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

O.U.R. as a source

BoN just made an edit using their site as a source. How reliable are them? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The other wiki mentions them having been accused of exaggerating claims. A better question might be whether there's a better source/figure to use, but I think measuring human trafficking is very difficult by its nature. Chillpilled (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

They basically have a history of making unprovable claims, they should not be used as a source. Plutocow (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I added a worldwide estimate from the US State department (who sourced their estimate from a report from two United Nations agencies and Walk Free.) Hope for Justice estimates 1 million in the United States, but I think that using the global estimate is better here; there are worse countries than the US when it comes to that.

Via the lawsuits against Tim Ballard, O.U.R. allegedly carries a strong whiff of grifting. I would not trust them until those suits play out and/or the organization reforms away from Ballard. The problem with this topic as a whole is that it is frequently been subject to wild exaggeration in order to induce the moral panic. This can lead to incredible tales of bullshit, as seen with QAnon and some of the other moral panics in the article. BobJohnson (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol

We're required to report abuse when we think someone else is doing it, but abusers aren't going to report themselves, silly! A better way to look at this is, if a kid tells me Father Whatshisname touched her somewhere he should not have, I have to report it, but if Mrs. Goaty tells Father Whatshisname in confession that she abuses children, he is not required to report. 71.215.128.51 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess this hypothetical is possible in some cases, but on the main, the idea is administrators are required to report on their own teachers but church leaders aren't required to report on their own subordinate clerics. It's hard to say whether this makes a big difference in how much abuse goes underreported in churches, but it's at least plausible that it makes a non-zero difference, especially when there's doctrine-based resistance among some religious denominations against such reporting. Chillpilled (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the IP is fighting something in their head. The article does not make the claim they think it is making. Nevertheless, the truth is that when people are put in positions of power there is a tendency to abuse it. When this is coupled with a social structure which reduces the opportunities for victims to speak out this is exacerbated. When the abusers themselves work in a hierarchy which tries to cover up their misdeeds the situation is further exacerbated. As it happens religious organizations like the Catholic church and others have proved to be institutions in which all these factors work together.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You know there's a way to test that theory, right? Are the percentages different in jurisdictions where clergy are mandatory reporters? Also, Christian school teachers employed by a church would be a mandatory reporter the same as a public school teacher. I ran into this foolishness on Wikipedia when someone was trying to claim that Christian colleges opt out of federal aid to cover up rape scandals, but in reality the comparable Christian colleges I looked at that DO take federal money have less sexual harassment claims than comparable secular institutions. Homophobia is a much more likely answer as to why some Christian colleges refuse government money. 71.215.128.51 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a human's moral responsibility to stop all abuse, and to say otherwise allows abuse to occur or proceed. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:EC20:3DCE:4DAC:3C72 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Objection

Why do people keep readding that image? Just because it's in a newspaper, doesn't mean that it isn't capable of baiting those who target and harm minors. And just because this wiki isn't censored, doesn't mean that not censoring the wiki isn't harmful. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:EC20:3DCE:4DAC:3C72 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the image caption clearly denounces the newspaper for hypocrisy and there is no actual reason to remove the image other than a flawed "harmful" argument. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, emphasis on "no reason". What's the advantage of removing it? That pedophiles will see a published image of a minor at all? There's nothing lascivious to the image other than the newspaper's own words. You need to explain your case better. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Read my other response. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:D42F:5554:9A1A:45CD (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the newspaper calls out the depiction of the minor, because bad kinds of people give no shit about the criticism, gain that kind of pleasure from the depiction, and proceed to do bad things involving minors. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:D42F:5554:9A1A:45CD (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

But that image isn't sexualising. the headline yes... the image no, following your logic we should have no images of children ever. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the image, and saw that only the highlighted text within the newspaper is what the s#xu#l#z#t##n is. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:2C10:E776:49C5:F361 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So you decided to remove something without even looking at it? That's bad practice. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to see stuff that I suspect to have or is described as having bad stuff in the "?action=edit" version of any page. The history also said that the image "might be objectionable". 2600:8800:8809:1C00:CDD9:B853:533F:7B6D (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So you don't actually look to see what your removing? Bad practice. It makes your concerns seem shallow and non genuine. And "might be objectionable" requires you know actually checking what you are removing? Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to see any bad stuff. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:8BA:41DB:C475:EC35 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But how do you know its bad if you haven't actually seen what it is? Removing stuff without looking is indistinguishable from trolling. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I remove stuff if it is bad, if I suspect that it is bad (because information that makes me suspect that it is bad), or if others say that it is bad. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:5D5B:DF81:A760:A741 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But if, as you admit, you don't look at it what makes you suspect it is bad? Your concerns come across similar to how the American RW are banning books. Bad idea all round. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to look at it to know that it is bad. The text "The Daily Star attacking a television show over depicting p#d#ph#l##, while also s#xu#l#z#ng then-15 year old singer Charlotte Church" (which I censored) made me suspect. I used context clues for my suspicion. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:3DFD:A59C:6D41:18E5 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to look at it to know that it is bad. but you should, not checking comes across as though your concerns are shallow and is indistinguishable from trolling. The text could be about the headline for the newspaper being sexualised rather than the image of the teen (as what actually occurred), but without checking whether it was you removed it which is bad practice and is more inline with censorship policies that the American RW (and some of the British RW) do. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather have censorship instead of having any form of child s#xu#l#z##n exist at all. You know what happens to your computer if you go onto a page that has any form child s#xu#l#z##n, right? It ends up in your hard drive, and you have to destroy and get rid of the hard drive forever so that bad kinds of people wouldn't cause harm to minors. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:79E4:586:B9EC:3F40 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

And therein lies the issue, your arguments read like a bad RW troll. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen pedo apologists create troll acounts that hyper censor anything involving kids to use as "evidence" of "bigotry" towards them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

its more like that overzealous censorship by a user who just hates child abuse so much gets more play and causes more disruption than a troll that simply drops paedo apologia into the article. the latter would be instantly reverted and the troll blocked, while the former might convince people of genuine if misguided concern that they engage with the troll. then its a game of how much time the troll can waste and how exasperated they can make people trying explain things to someone wilfully misunderstanding. im surprised they havent accused us of being paedos yet as we just dont hate child abuse as much them. DNFTT AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)