Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Globalize tag

There is so much material on international child sexual abuse that I think it'll be easy to make the page much, much better from this point of view. Places to start are here, here, here, here...etc! DanB DanD 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

It looks like we're starting up a little revert skirmish over the definition in the summary paragraph. However, I think both versions are bad: I don't think CSA is defined either popularly, legally, or medically in terms of the age of consent, so I think that whole debate is out of place. The law uses different words entirely like "statutory rape" or "corruption of a minor" or "lewd conduct" -- "abuse" is a word from psychology, and using the legal terminology of age of consent is muddying.

Here's what the APA says[1]. The bit I've bolded is the bit they highlight in a pull-quote.

What is Child Sexual Abuse?

There is no universal definition of child sexual abuse. However, a central characteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity. Child sexual abuse may include [list of acts omitted]. Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography. Abuse by peers also occurs.

So, I don't see why the phrase "age of consent" is in the first paragraph at all. The question according to the APA is the adult's position of power, which is unaffected by whether the kid is over the age of consent or not--your high school principal has the same position of dominance whether the local AoC is 14 or 16.

DanB DanD 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally the age is 18 in cases where the older partner is in a position of authority regardless of what it is in other cases. But that aside, we have to come to a conclusion about whether we are going to adopt a legal or medical definition and be consistent throughout the article. St. Jimmy 04:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag

The word "abuse" in this phrase relates to the the implication that all such sexual activity is inherently harmful, although some commentators, including those in favour of the abolition of age of consent laws criticize the presumption of harmfulness..

"Some commentators" comes close to weasel-wording. Is it worth mentioning people like Judith Levine or other sexologists/academics/commentators who criticize the assumption of harm in all adult-child sex? Maybe as a citation note? I've added a citation-needed tag for now -Neural 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning, but not in the lead paragraph, which is just an (at the moment, inaccurate) summary of the concept.

And in fact it is discussed already further down the page, so at the moment it's talked about twice.

DanB DanD 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been some studies related to the difference in harm to the child, as well as their coping ability, depending on the response the child experiences from their surroundings afterwards. Some of these suggested that the typical feedback from society causes most of the damage in the majority of cases.. I don't have the reference right now, though the one I'm thinking about had a few thousand participants. If it has credibility to it, it would be POV not to include it. Zuiram 00:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That lead paragraph

Child sexual abuse is commonly defined in contemporary western culture as any sexual activity an adult performs on or with a person under the local age of consent. The word "abuse" in this phrase relates to the the implication that all such sexual activity is inherently harmful, although some commentators[citation needed], including those in favour of the abolition of age of consent laws criticize the presumption of harmfulness. A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is known as a child sex offender if convicted. Child sexual abuse is a crime in most countries.

Let's look at how this approach would look if applied to the Earth article:

The earth is commonly defined as planet in the Sol system. The word "planet" in this phrase relates to the implication that the earth is a spherical object orbiting its sun, although some commentators, including those in favor of replacing current astronomical curricula with a time cube-oriented approach, criticize the presumption that the earth is not a flat plane supported on the backs of three huge elephants.

You see what I'm saying? Sure, there are a few wackjobs out there. So? It's of minor passing interest to mention this, but not in the article lead paragraph. Sheesh.

Do any of these "commentators" have any popular support? Of course not. Do reputable sociologists and sexologists support them? Of course not. Anybody with an axe to grind can make a website. Can we all at least agree that this paragraph needed some serious editing (which I have now done). Let's stick to the facts please, thx. Herostratus 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I think that really looks good. DanB DanD 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, you are begging the question of who is "reputable." Anyone who says anything strongly conunterintuitive to any strongly held public opinion is liable to become disreputable in the eyes of the public merely by doing so. Commentators, psychologists and sexologists who have disputed the presumption of harm are quite numerous, from Alfred Kinsey to Wakefield and Underwager to Rind to social critic Judith Levine and columnist Andrew Sullivan. But more to the point, you can't define CSA according to whether trauma occurs as the current para does. I avidly wish the law did so, but it doesn't. As long as CSA is defined a matter of rigidly defined age boundaries we are doing the public a disservice to pretend it is defined otherwise. St. Jimmy 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we need to talk about this more (argh!) but I'm going to revert for the duration of the discussion just because I think the paragraph as it is reads really awkwardly, and I like the new one.

DJac, can you quote us a legal source that explicitly defines "sexual abuse" in terms of age of consent? I've been looking, and I can't find one. I think what's going on here is that you're thinking of the specific crime of statutory rape, which may or may not be classed as sexual assault or sexual abuse depending on the circumstances. So, your concerns may be better addressed in that article.

Thing is, when I google CSA I don't get law codes, I get the APA.

DanB†DanD 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (look at my fancy new sig!!!)

Yes, I wouldn't take an overly legalistic view of CSA. I think we have to and do include legal aspects, but its primarily a social and psychological issue. Age of consent varies between jurisdictions, also. There is no clear, agree-upon meaning for the world "child"; to some, it means "minor" (basically anyone under 18, as 18 is the age of majority in most jurisdictions); to others it means pre-pubescent (or peripubescent) or pre-adolescent persons. I think "minor" is the better definition here, as (for example) sex between (say) a stepfather and 15-16-17 daughter in his care and control would generally be considered CSA, I think (I'm not sure of this). FWIW I also think that most CSA harm deniers are talking about this age range, though. I think very few people think that if you are talking about an 9-10-11 year old, say, would deny harm. Anyway, back to the lead... fine you dug up a few names. In a group of six you had to include a lay magazine columnist (and an idiot at that IMO), a social critic, the ever-cited Rind whom you are misunderstanding in my view (Rind did not make any such blanket statements), and Kinsey whom I also think you are misunderstanding, I think. Against this... well, you have scores of thousands of mental health workers who are constantly dealing with the traumatic results of CSA. You have many, many people who either were or who know people who were victims of CSA. Ask them if CSA is no big deal. You have many experts and researchers... look, I get it. You're Bravely Fighting The Dominant Paradigm. Fine. But there's just too much contrary information. You can't just spin it away.Herostratus 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

CSA should be defined in legal terms, but primarily discuss the social/psychological concerns. Anything other definition ends up on grounds that are not shared between countries and cultures. Legal age of consent for Europe and the USA ranges from 13-18. The rest of the world varies even more, and cultural acceptance is equally varied. WP is not anglocentric. I'd suggest confining the article to nonconsensual sexual relations involving one or more parties that are below the local age of consent. Anything else is either POV or a major can of worms. Zuiram 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I think Herostratus' formulation is much better. -Will Beback 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

-Dan, I think you're trying to wrangle with a tautology. "Child sexual abuse" is only a legal concept by virtue of a breach of the law, i.e. "statutory rape." It is not a legal concept except by reference to a statutory rape law. The fact that in some states, the generic crime of statutory rape is called "sexual abuse of a child" or something similar confuses things a little, but we have to be clear. -Herostratus, I don't think any of the people I cited make any blanket statements with regard to harmfulness, nor do I myself. We are talking about deniers of a presumption of harm (the Dominant Paradigm as you call it)--and what is a presumption if not a blanket evaluation? But one blanket evaluation does not need to be replaced by a contrary blanket evaluation. It may be replaced, instead, by a case-by-case consideration, which is much closer to what I think all the folks I cited would advocate. It's true that if you stack the deck as the current intro does--by making trauma a defining element of CSA--you will always find trauma in CSA victims. That's true in a tautologous sense, but it's not very helpful. Whereas, many victims of CSA (as defined by the law) have suffered no harm whatever; but they are overlooked because they aren't out complaining in the media, precisely because they see nothing to complain about. (In this as in many other areas of life, the squeaky wheel not only gets the grease, it usually gets to define the parameters of discussion.) -In summary, the article and lead para as it stands is a poor superimposition of legal and psychological concepts on one another. The plain fact is that there is not a perfect correspondence between what the law says is licit conduct and what many informed people believe about the innate harmfulness of certain conduct. We can frame CSA according to either a legal or a psychological definition, but there absolutely must be a coming to grips with that disjunction between "illegal" and "harmful" or "innately harmful." St. Jimmy 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

"...many victims of CSA (as defined by the law) have suffered no harm whatever; but they are overlooked because they aren't out complaining in the media, precisely because they see nothing to complain about."'

This statement is as logically absurd (and untrue) as it is loathsome. You could make the same statement about anything, because one can't disprove a negative. ("Many victims of [rape, mutilation, mimes, whatever] have suffered no harm whatever; but they are overlooked because they aren't out complaining in the media, precisely because they see nothing to complain about.")

What makes it loathsome? By what objective criterion do you apply this label to his statement? There's tons of stuff on Wikipedia that is loathsome to me, some of which people have actively thrown in my face for stating that I dislike it. I leave them alone because I cannot stomach the debate. If you cannot stomach opinions on this article, you should leave it alone.

More relevantly, (assuming I haven't crossed your affective threshold already, that is) it is Wikipedia policy to "Assume good faith". In this case, the statement included the qualifier as defined by the law. There is a difference between claiming that sexual abuse will not traumatize a child and claiming that not all people below the local age of consent are incapable of consenting to sex without being traumatised by it.

If a 20 year old girl in an area with 21 years age of consent (e.g. Madagascar) has sex with a 21 year old boy, is she universally traumatized? How about 16/18 (my own debut, years ago)? Or 13/14 (the rounded-off statistical averages (F/M) for Norway, whose age of consent is 16)?

There is great interindividual variation in maturity, great interlegislation variation in the age of consent, and great intercultural variation in what is considered CSA, starting early, normal, or starting late. And the boundaries shift over time. I'm sure we all know people that are above the age of consent who are not "ready" for sex. And most of us who have friends at or below that age probably know some below it that are.

Before I started editing Wikipedia, I hypothesized that this article would be the prime example of how Wikipedia has failed (and is doomed to fail) in presenting a neutral point of view (which it aims to do, per the NPOV policy) and factual content (which it does not explicitly aim to do, it aims to be "verifiable"). This article, and its talk page, strongly support this hypothesis, although there might be other articles out there that do a worse job of it, and the article could improve.

There is a sliding scale here, and what most "unpopular" researchers in this field are concluding, is that rape is somewhat more traumatic to adults, that betrayal of trust is generally more traumatic to children, that betrayal of trust is not implicit in sex, that consensual sex is generally not traumatic to anyone, and that feedback from society is the most important factor in determining the extent of trauma regardless of age. There is also a significant difference between a prepubescent and a peri- or postpubescent person below the local age of consent.

And, just so you don't get the idea that I'm wearing my rose-colored mirrorshades here, I have friends that have been sexually abused that have been traumatized to different degrees, although there is no apparent correlation between the age at which it occured and the trauma and coping skills resulting from it.

Knee-jerk reactions and emotional involvement are not useful to the neutrality and factuality (or verifiability) of this article, and it could benefit from balanced attention from experts on both sides of the issue.

If you feel like replying to this, feel free to do so here, or on my talk page. Just keep it civil.

Zuiram 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't have something that big go through the room without leaving tracks. Where are the tracks, then. How come Jerry Springer and his ilk don't feature CSA victims who enjoyed their abuse? Don't you think they'd love a controversial show like that?

Granted, it's not impossible to subject a child to CSA and have it turn out alright, just as it's not impossible to subject a child to cocaine addiction or savage beatings and have it turn out alright. The fact that some people are extremely resiliant is of interest and may be included as a minor aside somewhere in the article.

Granted also that the number of people, some of whom can write coherent sentences, who think that CSA is a day at the beach is not zero. I know all about girllovers and boylovers and that. The overwhelming majority of these people come to the plate with a huge agenda of self interest. I recognize that one study out of thousands (Rind) - probably cited more in Wikipedia than On the Origin of Species or the Theory of Special Relativity - is construed as basically saying that CSA is all fun and games (a misreading of what is anyway a seriously flawed study, in my opinion). Fine, that can go in somewhere. Not in the lede, though.

Also, I mean, be reasonable. From the article: "Many experts [make that virtually all - Ed.] believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors. A wide range of psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects has been attributed to child sexual abuse, including anxiety, depression, obsession, compulsion, grief, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms such as flashbacks, emotional numbing, pseudo-maturity symptoms, and other more general dysfunctions such as sexual dysfunction, social dysfunction, dysfunction of relationships, poor education and employment records, eating disorders, self-mutilation, and a range of physical symptoms common to some other forms of PTSD, such as sensual numbness, and loss of appetite." Which syncs with simple common sense and the experience of the overwhelming majority of people. Did those researchers just pull all that out of thin air?

As to your reply to Dan, I'm not sure what you're saying. In most cases, for instance, verbal and psychological abuse is not a crime. Does that mean that it does not exist. Hell, lots of things that aren't prohibited by law still exist. Mimes, for instance. Herostratus 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As for my "loathsome commentary", I generally don't get autobiographical, but since you are so fervent about the absurdity of the statement you quoted, allow me to cite myself as evidence for what you find so hard to believe. I had sexual relations before I was 16, the "legal" age in Michigan. I was not and am not harmed by the experience. By the standards of the law, I was "subjected to child sexual abuse." The difference between me and the typical talk show guest is that I consider it to have been initiation, not exploitation. Now, perhaps I am guessing (though having spoken to many people about it, it is not exactly a shot in the dark) but I think there are many other people like myself, who when they hear "child sexual abuse" it flies over their head, never suspecting that it applied to them. We remain unheard, while those who insist that they were "victims"--sometimes for precisely the same activity--are heard ad nauseam. Again, there is a basic disjunction between harm (which would cause us to see ourselves as victims of abuse) and what the law actually says about abuse. Also, people brought up a certain way may feel a reticence about discussing their sexual histories, especially if those histories don't jibe with what is considered proper or politically correct. This, too, contributes to a skewed view of what is actually going on.

Rind's study, as does the work of the other folks I cited, does not compare CSA to "fun and games", but does challenge the "intrinsic harm" view of CSA. Your hyperbole doesn't help your case. Those opposed to your point of view do not seek to impose an opposite view as extreme as the one you are defending. They simply believe that the presumption of intrinsic harm is false. And, as you point out, there are notable folks defending this view.

As to what Dan said, I was merely pointing out that he was trying to mix a legal concept with a psychological one (though to an extent, we all have been). Dan wrote "DJac, can you quote us a legal source that explicitly defines "sexual abuse" in terms of age of consent?" Well, no, I can't quote a single legal source to that effect, since the law only discusses the law and things that relate to the law. Have you ever been driving on a main road or highway and the driver in front of you seems unable to pick a lane to drive in and stick to it? Well, we can define CSA legally or psychologically, and I don't care which, but we do need to pick one definition or the other and stick to it, and then be able to recognize its contradictions and limitations. St. Jimmy 04:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very, very unsurprising that someone under the age of 16 reports being untraumatized by sex. Teenager Enjoys Sex! News At Eleven!

That's not really anything to do with anything. For one thing, teenagers enjoy doing lots of things that are harmful to them and are rightly illegal, such as tequila and driving really fast. A guy who gives a fourteen-year-old a bottle of cuervo and a set of car keys is a very bad man, no matter how thrilled the kid is by this "initiation" into grown-up life.

For another thing, no, I don't think we do have to pick legal or psych and stick to it. Just as "Domestic Abuse" is not the name of a crime but a term that may be applied to a number of different crimes (and some non-crimes) committed in the context of a family. A definition can be perfectly clear without having very clear limits, like the definition of "blue."

Also, nice compassion for those folks whose early experiences of sex were less happy than yours.

DanB†DanD 06:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A definition can be perfectly clear without having very clear limits, like the definition of "blue." There probably is a scientific definition of "blue" out there, according to wavelength or whatever it may be (I wasn't a physics major). But aside from that, the various colloquial and other possible definitions of "blue" are not liable to be randomly alternated within the same article in order to defend a particular agenda. It's a fallacy of ambiguity, such as in the argument "Smurfs are blue; Smurfette must have died." In debates, and in factual encyclopedia articles, unlike ordinary frivolous discussions, clear definitions are absolutely essential if one wants to know what is actually being talked about.

As for my supposed lack of compassion, maybe you have a point. However, when people are already overdosing on their own sensitivity, they need straight talk, not more empathy. If compassion is the coin of the realm, here's a case that could've used a bit more of it: Battle Creek EnquirerSt. Jimmy 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, when I started watchlisting the Pedophilia related articles, I thought I would be vandal patrolling against people in the censorship crowd (you know, the one who has an edit summary of "We shouldn't have to read this"?) and your normal assortment of IP idiots. Little did I know that I was going to have to read pages-long rants written by self-proclaimed champions of The Truth(tm)... Anyway, my input on this would be that the current intro is so watered down that it already has a strong implied statement that an event is only Child Sexual Abuse if there is a "trauma reaction" in the child.

Speaking of the term trauma reaction, what exactly does that mean? Do we have an article that defines trauma reaction we could link to at that point? --tjstrf 08:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse occurs when a person (usually an adult or older child) engages a child in sexual activity resulting in a trauma reaction in the victim - this article is now factually incorrect. As most of us are well-aware, any and all sexual activity between an adult and a child is legally classed as CSA, regardless of whether any "traumatic reaction" is recorded in the minor or not. The lead paragraph has gone from being balanced and factual to POV and erroneos. -Neural 11:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ITA 100% neural. The inclusion of "trauma" as a defining characteristic of CSA is absolutely unacceptable. St. Jimmy 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that the definition of abuse requires there to be trauma, hence child sexual abuse would inherit that requirement. However, it's not Wikipedia's place to reform definitions of terms. --tjstrf 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That Lead Paragraph II: A New Hope

I'll make an edit break here because the section was getting long, and I have a new proposal.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. In everyday language (and pychological langauge), "abuse" is by definition traumatic; if its not traumatic, its not abuse. Then there is the legal side. Now, I'm not sure of the language used in laws, and to find out would mean combing through many score of laws, but it seems to me at least possible that many jurisdiction the term "child sexual abuse" may not even be in the statute. For instance, I could well image that a law of jurisdiction X might say something like "[given sexual activity] by a person with a child of [age X] or younger shall result in a term of not less than 10 years in jail" or whatever. Without using the term "child sexual abuse" anywhere in the statute. Law are usually very specific, and need to describe but not necessarily give a name to the illegal behavior.

However, until this is sorted out, how about the text below as a compromise? Herostratus 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The term child sexual abuse (CSA) refers to two related but separate concepts:

• In psychological and common parlance, child sexual abuse occurs when a person (usually an adult or older child) engages a child in sexual activity, usually resulting in a trauma reaction in the victim. Reactions vary between individuals and circumstances and according to the age of the victim, but post-traumatic stress and depression are common results.
• iIn law, any sexual relations between an adult and a child, or between an older and younger child (or, in some jurisdictions, between children of similar ages) may, if they violate the child protection laws of a given jurisdiction, be termed child sexual abuse regardless of the presence or absence of psychological trauma.

---

I would go for that, except for the phrase "usually resulting" in the first half. Change "usually" to "often" and I think we're pretty good to go. (Usually implies more than 50% of the time and notable folks dispute that.) St. Jimmy 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not so much. A double-definition is just weird.

I do see now that "trauma reaction" is misplaced in the lead sentence. A trauma reaction is something pretty specific and involved, as the page I linked shows, and you can quite easily find lots of people going "Hey, I just had sex with that thirteen-year-old, and she's neither numbed nor amnesiac. Clearly I've done nothing wrong!" Coercive, long-term, or prepubescent abuse will typically lead to a trauma reaction; underage sex as such frequently will not.

However, arguments against the presumption of "trauma" (easy to make) are not arguments agains the presumption of harm (much less easy to make).

The part I like is the part you've cut from your new version, Herostratus - the part closer to the APA definition. The good part of it is that it defines abuse in terms of what is is not in terms of its effects.

APA says - "a central characteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity"

Herostratus previously said - "the result of the relative powerlessness of the child in relation to the perpetrator of the abuse, or the introduction of sexual activity inappropriate to the child's level of sexual development, or both."

Seriously guys, stop being obsessed with the age of consent. It's a total side issue. You can have a paragraph somewhere down the page saying "Many argue that age of consent laws sometimes cause prosecutions for abuse where no abuse has taken place. See Age of consent. The end." Numbers just are not defining to the concept of abuse. Differential in power and the violation of healthy sexual development is central to the concept of abuse. Get it out of the lead paragraph.

At least until you can find a reputable source somewhere defining "sexual abuse" in terms of age - as I have found a reputable source defining it in terms of power differential and developmental appropriateness.

DanB†DanD 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, DJac, I looked it up, and you'll be happy to learn that you were not the victim of "child sexual abuse" in Michigan. You were instead the victim of 750.520e Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor - or you were if your partner was five years older than you; otherwise not.

Interestingly, according to Sander's comprehensive review for NCLEX-RN, the board of nursing defines child sexual abuse not by the presence of trauma, but rather by the presence of exploitation. The definition of child abuse also reflects this, being given as "Emotional or physical abuse or neglect, as well as sexual exploitation or molestation by caretakers or other individuals." (Abuse itself is defined as "The willful infliction of pain, injury, or mental anguish.") So, assuming the definition to still be current, (I only have the 2002 edition) that would be the medical definition in the U.S. --tjstrf 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If we want to add a bit on effects of consensual postpubescent sex, there's the The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which studied the effects on teens of, among other things, sex (not necessarily with adults). Unfortunately the group that has used their data on sex most has been the Heritage Foundation, conservative ideologues. However, I did find this study, a little less alarmist but reading the data the same way. DanB†DanD 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note: Please remember that child molestation and child molester both redirect to this page. We need to make sure that the intro, and the rest of the article, also covers the concept of molestation. -Will Beback 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I googled up and am reading through. Interesting on the history of evolving perspectives: potential cite? It's not at all NPOV in its language, but appears solidly sourced in its information. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html DanB†DanD 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Department of Justice's site (obviously a legal rather than a psych source) concurs with the APA in defining sexual abuse as an abuse of power rather than as a question of arithmetic:

"Sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youth occurs when an older child, adolescent or adult takes advantage of a younger child or youth for sexual purposes"[2]

The site then lists the various laws that apply, which take into account both age, age difference, and type of relationship (dependency or not). DanB†DanD 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The First Paragraph Strikes Back

I removed the 'some people believe...' section in the first paragraph as this is an entry for Child Sexual Abuse, not pedophilia, and it is not by any means the appropriate place for NAMBLA members or whoever else to publicize illegal and harmful propaganda. I also removed the link at the bottom to NAMBLA. I do not understand how it can be justified as a part of this article. Someone seeking a resource on CSA, particularly a minor, does not need to be referred to a set of 'opinions' by a group of people who are wrong, and who are breaking the law, and who are, quite simply, sociopaths. I am referencing this recent NYTimes article as justification as to why allowing this type of flaming is so harmful: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/technology/21pedo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. -

Here goes me:

Child sexual abuse is the sexual assault of a minor, or sexual activity between a minor and an older person in which the dominant position of the older person is used to coerce or exploit. Child sexual abuse is illegal in most countries. Although statutes differ in detail, all sex between an adult and a young child is held to be coercive under the law regardless of the use of physical force.

Child molestation is an informal synonym for child sexual abuse, most often used for sex between adults and young children. A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is known as a child sex offender if convicted, or informally as a child molester.

Okay? I would cite the APA for the first sentence, and hopefully non-American sites too (the def. does match UK/Commonwealth practice, but so far I'm having a hard time finding clear definitional statements except for the Canadian one. As always, non-English sources are hard to come by for the non-English speaker, but please help out if you can.

After a search, I have not found any exceptions to the third sentence (no, not even Holland - under twelve is straightup abuse there, no question of consent. It's the 12-16 range where they have a gray area), so that's why I didn't say "generally" or "in most countries" there.

Some of Herostratus' language on effects could easily be incorporated into this, or added in a third brief paragraph. As I've said, I don't think the age of consent is of defining importance. I'm also going to move "effects&;;;quot; and "offender" above the section on U.S. law, to decrease that pesky Americo-centrism that plagues us so. I suggest adding brief entries for other notable countries in addition to the U.S. one (such as Holland which is so famously the most permissive state on this that I'm surprised to realize we don't have info), and maybe cutting the U.S. detail a bit.

What says wiki?

DanB†DanD 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The part I have re-inserted deals with, and explains, how "abuse" in CSA relates to the presumption of abusiveness in any sexual activity between a legal adult and a legal minor, while legally CSA is not dependent on any disclosure of trauma by the victim. If there is no presumption of harm, the term would be "adult-child sex" or something, not "child sex abuse". Let's try to keep articles as objective and NPOV as possible. Instead of a lengthy discussion of all this within the article (as I was tempted to write), I've linked to the Age of consent reform page that discusses the other views and/or criticisms. This part was put in initially to address accusations of unbalance on this talk page in the first place. I don't see how deleting this part can be anything other than an attempt to push a particular POV by censoring any info on different views. -Neural 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Neural, the AoC does not define abuse. Many jurisdictions do not hold all sex across the AoC to be abusive. Many jurisdictions do hold sex with kids above the age of consent to be abusive when a custodial relationship exists. A link to age of consent concerns belongs somewhere on the page (See also?) but not in the definition. DanB†DanD 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure that looks OK, put it in. My original had "or the introduction of sexual activity inappropriate to the child's level of sexual development, or both.". This is basically (but not entirely) referring to prepubescent and early-pubescent children. I don't have a cite for this handy but I'm sure there are thousands. I think it ought to go in. :"Adult-child sex" is not a commonly accepted term. It is useful in some places, but not here. NPOV usually means using the standard, common, accepted, and accurate terminology. We don't call "murder" a "violent interaction between two people" and so forth, even if that is technically correct, and so forth. As for the legal stuff, the more I think of it, the less likely it seems to me that the "child sexual abuse" is used in all or even the great majority of laws. It ought to be minimized in the lead paragraph although its OK to address it in the body of the article. For the other, again I go back to my contention that views held by a small group of insert description of choice here should be given anything like equal treatment. NPOV basically means accepting the Standed Model, the Accepted Version, whatever you want to call it. We are not so much interested in the truth, odd as that sounds -- because truth is far too slippery a concept, and each person has their own truths. Bottom line, yes, go with that version -- except take out the bolding except for the term itself. Herostratus 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing some nice new links, but I'm not finding an exact cite for "or the introduction of sexual activity inappropriate to the child's level of sexual development, or both." You'd think it'd be easy, but most material is too specialized to exactly set that straight out like that, although most material assumes and implies that it's true. Anyway, it seems pretty much incontravertible that screwing an eight-year-old is, above and beyond and power-relationship issues, introducing a level of sexual activity into her life that ain't healthy. I mean, if suppose you could take away the power-differential issues (which would be impossible, but just supposing) would it then be OK and not disruptive to her psyche? No way. But you can't separate the two, because it always involves a power differential. But anyway, it still does need a cite. Hang on, I'll find one. Herostratus 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet again (sigh) we have returned to a crude and misleading definition of CAS in the lead paragraph - basically one interpretation that is at odds with legal reality in most juristictions where "CSA" is on the books as an offense. I can tell by the edit history that a POV is being pushed here, one that tolerates no alternative views, and one that over-rides any attempt at neutrality and objectivity: namely, the view that any-all sexual activity between a legal minor and a legal adult (that differs radically depending on juristiction) is innately harmful, as the the local law/culture of certain editors would have it. My own view or these other personal views are neither here nor there. Because of cultural taboos and the accepted wisdom of a majority of editors, this article comes nowhere near the NPOV standards required of Wikipedia articles. Currently we have: "CSA is (my POV interpretation of my culture's or my law's particular stance on what CSA is/means). I suggest a far more considered/objective/balanced rewrite that tells a bigger picture instead of turning this into a right-wing tract. In the meantime, I have reverted to the version that includes more than one strong POV of the subject. -Neural 11:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What a confusing thing to say.

You argue against my supposed assertion of "innate harm" but in fact the way my first paragraph differs from the previous one is that it doesn't define CSA in terms of harm. It doesn't even mention harm.

Meanwhile, the version you keep reverting to is simply inaccurate, particularly from a global point of view. Lots of sex across the AoC is not legally CSA. Lots of sex on one side of the AoC is CSA. The AoC does not define CSA, not even in most of America, and certainly not globally. I honestly don't know why you keep on wanting to talk about the freaking age of consent.

It really seems to me that you're arguing not against my language, but against some phantom opponent you have dreamed up, who asserts a phantom definition that you have also dreamed up. It is all quite strange.

DanB†DanD 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A Few Exemplary Cases
1. Suzy, 17, is above the age of consent in Michigan. Martin, 32, is her lover. But he is also her teacher! Is their sex CSA?
AoC says: NO
Michigan law says: YES
Because of the custodial relationship between them, the law holds sex between them to be abuse despite her being north of the Age of Consent.
AoC does not define CSA in this case.

2. Herman, 18, is madly in love with Huey, 15, his fellow Londoner. The British age of consent is 16. Is their sex CSA?
AoC says: YES
British law says: NO
The Home Office has issued the binding policy statement that the age of consent law "is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation."
AoC does not define CSA in this case.

3. Californian Joey, 13, desires Zoe, only 10. When she refuses him, he threatens and bullies her until, weeping, she gives in. Is their sex CSA?
AoC says: NO
California law says: YES
Because the sex is coercive, it is abuse under the law regardless of Joey's young age.
AoC does not define CSA in this case.

4. Under a Dutch windmill, Soren, 14, blushingly receives the attentions of Serena, 20....

ET FREAKING CETERA, NEURAL

IT AINT THE FREAKING AOC

IT JUST AINT

DanB†DanD 13:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your APA citation hardly counts as a universally-accepted global definition of CSA, does it? I also think you have some of your facts wrong, regarding the AOC, statuory rape laws, etc. Exceptions to the AOC laws are made (in some countries, in some juristictions) where the two people are close in age. Regardless, your entire definition of CSA only relates to laws in some countries. For example, a 40 year old having sexual relations with a 14 year old would be CSA in most (if not all) States in America, but not in Austria and other European countries where the legal AOC is 14 (sometimes lower). In some countries, the marriageable age is even lower, and sexual activity would not be classed as CSA.

Finally, why do you need to resort to personal insults about me with you article-history comments? This seems to be another case where you apparently have no regard for Wikipedia's policies. Let's keep things civil and focus on improving Wikipedia's articles by keeping them as neutral and objective as possible. -Neural 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "laughing boy" counts as a the most devastating personal insult ever slung on Wikipedia, but I do apologize for dropping that encyclopedic tone.

Sadly, you are still making no sense.

What possible difference does variation from place to place in the AoC (which obviously exists) make to either your proposed definition or to mine? The point does not refer to any difference between versions of the lead paragraph, and is in fact already mentioned in both. Why do you bring it up? Are you just stalling?

DanB†DanD 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cases not really exemplary

Dan, I would argue that the cases you listed simply mean the age of consent changes in a given place according to circumstances, but I won't argue that. I'll endorse something like the current version (defining CSA seperately from the age of consent) as long as it states EXPLICITLY that underage sex is not necessarily CSA, and vice versa. St. Jimmy 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you would state that succintly without being misleading - in some jurisdictions (check out the Idaho penal code!) the overlap is exact. And as the page says, sex between adults and young children (as each culture defines those categories) is considered abuse everywhere. But go ahead and try out some language. DanB†DanD 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is the overlap exact in Idaho? Do you mean that the sexual abuse law makes no specific reference to age, but only to 'abuse of power' or whatever your side's preferred catchphrase is? St. Jimmy 05:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

the return of the lead paragraph

Until we work this out, I'm sure of the following:

• We are not going to have WP:WEASEL words such as "...commonly defined in contemporary western culture...". Unless you have cites that in China or wherever child sexual abuse is considered occasion for a block party, let's keep oh-so-clever stuff like that out.
• As we've explained many times, the abolition of age of consent law movement consists of a tiny handful of ultra-right-wing loonies with zero support from serious researchers, mental health workers, the general public, or anyone else. They are not gettting a nice comfy spot in the lead. They have their own articles.
• Maybe you didn't get the memo, but the days when Wikipedia was called Wikipedophilia are over. There are many, many web sites where you can polemicize all you want to. Wikipedia's high visibility is not going to be hijacked to help publicize any extremist movements, period.
• I'm starting to get annoyed.Herostratus 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you actually read the Age of consent reform page, you'll see that there are many differing groups supporting abolition or reduction. Far from being right wing, most are ultra-'lefties if anything. Strident right-wingers typically favour ALL sex (except that within marriage) being taboo or even illegal. Where do you get the odd idea that abolition is a right-wing idea??? It's is the opposite. You could hardly call lefties like Judith Levine and John Holt right-wingers... -Neural 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

How is a movement to abolish the age of consent right-wing in any way shape or form? I think the extremists on that side would prefer we all use the missionary position and make adultery a stoneable offense again. --tjstrf 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was informed this morning that I'm right-wing myself, so I'm prepared to believe anybody is. (Herostratus is right if "right-wing" is understood to mean anti-government, although that's not the form of the right wing that we presently have in power).

Also...it does seem as if the adversarial tone (which I have totally contributed to, however flippantly) is getting to be a bit much. DanB†DanD 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

People seem to just use the label opposite their own to accuse people they disagree with of borderline insanity nowdays. It's getting to the point where "conservative" and "liberal" can both be considered nearly pejorative terms. Besides, the left-right political labels don't reflect the opinions of most groups accurately, multi-axis political models are far more precise (under which system, abolition of age of consent would be on the extreme fringe of social liberalism). But we're rather off topic now, aren't we? --tjstrf 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit off-topic, but think this through with me. Why is it ultra-right-wing? Liberals and socialists believe in protecting the people, especially the weak (the poor, the disabled, the elderly, children, etc.) from the hardness of this world, especially the effects of predatory capitalism. Right wingers believe it's every man for himself. Age of consent laws are child protection laws. What else would they be, what other function would they have? An adult is stronger than a child, much stronger. Physically stronger, more clever, more experienced, a more subtle thinker, a more convincing talker. I saw a comment from a fireman recently that said through about age eleven, children in a fire will usually hide under a bed or in a closet, even if an escape route is available. They find small bodies in these places. How can a person who believes that the way to escape a fire is to hide in a closet establish themselves in an equal relationship with a strong, clever, smooth talking, mentally developed person with a driving adult lust. Age of consent laws are of a piece with child labor laws etc. Children are weaker than adults for many, many reasons, and need protection. One result of abolishment of age of consent laws would certainly be an increase in child prostitution. Yes a libertarian would say Well it's the child's choice if she wants to do that. That takes no account of how the world really works. There are such people as pimps, and they can be crafty and ruthless. Sexual exploitation of children in general would skyrocket. All this is why we have child labor laws and other laws protecting children. Again, a libertian would say Well an 8-year-old should have the choice to work 12 hours a day in a coal mine. Do we want to go back to that kind of world. If all capitalists were saints perhaps this would not be a problem. Establishment of age of consent was definitely a left-liberal movement, at least in the United States, by the way. You will also find that that the Youth Liberation Movement is against child-labor laws, schooling laws, and the like, and are in bed with the Randians. Granted that some advocates of the abolotion of age of consent are libertines rather than libertarians and proclaim no strong political views. But that does not mean that they are not catspaws for ultra-right activists. You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you, and we live in a political world. Herostratus 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While your statements about the democratic ideals are nice, they have nothing to do with "liberalism" the concept. By the precise positive definitions, rather than the current partisan republican/democrat derived, politically spun meanings, liberalism is not the opposite of conservatism, but rather of authoritarianism. Liberalism supports more personal freedom and the individual as their own leader. Authoritarianism supports more governmental control and the government as protector and leader.

Conservativism is totally seperate, and is more a mindset than a political philosophy. It is considered the opposite of progressive. Conservativism espouses cautiousness in change, moderation, maintenance of the status quo, and the avoidance of rash or radical decisions. Progressivism espouses constant change, and opposes leaving things at the status quo.

Now, you will notice that every one of these traits is, in itself, a positive description. They are also independant of one another. Liberal does not entail progressive, conservative does not entail authoritarian. Further, you can have different views in different fields, such as the economy, social issues, foreign policy, etc. This is why a simple left-right classification will never be sufficient to identify where an idea falls politically.

So, abolition of the age of consent is a socially liberal idea, as it is against governmental control. It is definitely an extremist idea, and most self identified liberals would vehemently disagree with it, but the idea itself is liberal. --tjstrf 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's libertarian. I'm a Social Democrat and I believe in protecting the weak, period. Would you also call abolition of child labor laws "liberal". After all it is taking taking the away the authortarian prevention of the child from making his own decisons. There are such "liberal" societies. You can find them in the slums of third-world cities, where children are "free" to work as prostitutes, rag-pickers, beggars, and petty criminals -- practically the only occupations open to them, as they are physically and mentally too weak to compete with adults for more desirable work. Would it be socially liberal to eliminate minimum ages for ending schooling, for drinking, what have you. All these laws are proper social democrat laws. There isn't much difference between aqge of consent laws and child labor laws, you can't slip a piece of paper between them. "The strong take what they can, the weak endure what they must" -- that's an ultra-right point of view and you can't deny it. Unless you have a simple libertine point of view and view children as sexual toys.

Relax, I'm not claiming you support any of those things. Remember, liberalism in reality has nothing to do with partisanism, democrats, or republicans, both of whom are liberal and authoritarian in different areas. If we actually had one fully liberal and one fully authoritarian party, we'd have to be choosing between anarchism and dictatorship.

Legalizing child labour would be liberal. Legalizing child prostitution would be liberal. Legalizing drug use, spousal abuse, abortion, sweat-shops, etc. would all be liberal, since they are removing government restrictions on the populace. (Lassez-faire is the liberal economic philosophy, though certainly not the one supported by the democratic party.) However, they would also be horrendously immoral. These acts are the liberal extremist equivalent to the authoritarian extremist travesties of fascism, government-sponsored genocide, and the gulags. Morality is an entirely different issue from political philosophy, and extremism to any direction will have negative results morally.

Protecting the weak is a progressive authoritarian ideal, and to be lauded. "The strong take what they can, the weak endure what they must" is non-progressive (I'd almost say regressionist) liberal cynicism, and definitely not something to promote. As a general rule, Social Democrats are moderate progressive social liberals, and moderate to full progressive economic authoritarians. Libertarians are full to extreme progressive liberals in both social and economic issues. And in case you were wondering, both parties which have influence right now are mostly authoritarian in their actions. --tjstrf 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, being a social democrat who believes in protecting the weak may get you into heaven faster, but it does not give you any more moral authority in editing a supposedly neutral reference source than any other editor. So skip the self-congratulation. You consider any tampering with the age of consent to be motivated by "ultra right wing" tendencies? Fine, then there are a lot of notable "ultra right wing" folks who have notably commented on the issue and whose views need to be included here. St. Jimmy 05:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of CSA given in the paragraph is only the APA's own definition - this is now pointed out. I've also tried to re-integrate the part that was intended to bring balance in the first place, so that the article is not pretending there is only one universally accepted view of CSA that everyone in the world agrees with (strong POV).

Btw, Dan, I hardly think that "laughing boy" was meant as a term of endearment, but all is forgiven.

A note to all: if we don't keep this article as balanced as is absolutely possible, let's don't expect this to be voted a top-quality article any time soon. People understandably have very strong views on this subject, but the article should not be the place for anyone to preach those views or pretend that no other views exist.

-Neural 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about "classic liberalism", which (if I recall) is a more or less laissez-faire philosphy developed in opposition to the aristocracy controlling everything. That's an old, historical definition not meant nowadays when people say "liberalism". But anyway I didn't use those terms. I used ultra-right-wing = right libertarian, which is accurate. But nevermind.

The point is that small bands of fanatics, while perhaps worthy of some mention, don't deserve pride of place in the lead paragraph, period. Trying to twist NPOV to make it serve the aims of extremist polemics isn't going to fly. I stand by my original analogy, which is that the following lead paragraph would NOT be NPOV:

"The earth is commonly defined as planet in the Sol system. The word "planet" in this phrase relates to the implication that the earth is a spherical object orbiting its sun, although some commentators, including those in favor of replacing current astronomical curricula with a time cube-oriented approach, criticize the presumption that the earth is not a flat plane supported on the backs of three huge elephants."

If you don't get why that lead would be biased, I can't help you, but I will again say: you're supposed to be here to edit articles, not use Wikipedia for your own foul ends, and you can't, end of story.

Classic liberalism? Yes, I suppose so, though classic liberalism is slightly different. I stated as much in my initial replies. Though it's not so much "classical" as it is "the actual, non politically partisan spun definition of" liberalism. It's also the one we use on the wiki, liberalism states: "Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought." and then goes on to point out how many modern liberals have an authoritarian view towards the market economy. --tjstrf 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Heros, I have really been trying to work toward a generally acceptable consensus here, but your ideological snit is pushing me closer to endorsing Neural's position. I don't care if you think egalitarianism and so-called liberal values are the way to go, beyond any dispute. Those "left-wing" values are not universally accepted, and they are beside the point in any event. If we can get off the left/right name calling and POV pushing we might actually be able to get a decent article written. St. Jimmy 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hero, one of the inherent requirements for NPOV is that we avoid making value judgments. In other words, Wikipedia is to, on controversial issues, tread the amoral path. I realize you are pro-wikiethics, but evil deserves its fair say. --tjstrf 03:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I cited the definition to the APA because they give a pretty clear statement of it at the linked page. However, I think it's misleading to say that it's their definition as the page does now -- the Canadian Department of Justice uses almost identical language, suggesting that the language is international, and that it's legal as well as psychological in application.

Most of Neural's revisions were more just inaccurate than NPOV. As for "evil having its say," I think one of the biggest problems this and other controversial pages on wiki have is with undue weight. In other words, famous evil gets to have its say, but regular old internet crankiness, not so much. The definition the page should primarily reflect is that of the international legal and psychological mainstream.

DanB†DanD 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to cite it to someone for verifiability reasons, even if they aren't the only gorup using it. If the Canadian government uses the same definition, then cite and mention them as well, don't remove a perfectly good reference because they aren't the only source. --tjstrf 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I just didn't put it in, because I think succintness is a worthy goal for the first paragraph! DanB†DanD 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, it needs a reference. Since the APA definition was almost certainly the basis for the Canadian law, referencing the APA makes sense. --tjstrf 04:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

People are still trying to push their own view or interpretation of CSA by removing references to any views contrary to their own. The weak justification for this is that the views mentioned are polemic. Obviously, the views in question are controversial, but so are many views on many subjects. An NPOV article covers all views, does not preach a particular view, and leaves readers to draw their own conclusions and POVs based on a knowledge of all sides and their arguments. Whether anyone finds such arguments "evil" due to their own beliefs is neither here nor there. By pretending there is only one universally accepted view of CSA, we are simply misleading readers with a POV account that tolerates no dissent. -Neural 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Page archive?

I think this page needs archiving, and am more than willing to do it. It's reached the hellishly long 100kb stage, where you really can't find anything anymore by scrolling through it, has 30-some subheadings, and is 22 pages when printed. If we archived everything that has been inactive since July, that would trim 31 sub-headings, drastically reducing the talk page length. Comments? --tjstrf 05:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did that, and it's still too long. Oh well, I guess I'm partly at fault for that, due to my definition of liberalism essay. --tjstrf 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neural

• It's inaccurate that "sex between a adult and a minor" normally defines abuse, as even Jimmy has pointed out to you
• It's inaccurate that exceptions to this are always defined by age or by difference in age - they are often determined by type of sex (penetrative/non-penetrative/etc.) or by type of relationship (custodial/non-custodial/marriage) or by a court's judgement of exploitation or coercion.
• To place a idea in the lead paragraph is to treat it as if it has broad acceptance and is part of the consensus definition of the article's subject. Just saying "It's controversial" does not change this - it implies that mainstream legal and psych circles are divided on the question, which is even more misleading.
• "Young child" is not equivalent to "minor" or to "person under the age of consent," so if you want to change it, you can't just plug one of those terms into my sentence because the sentence will become nonsensical. You're right that "young child" has no single global definition, but then no more does "minor." Both are common, easily grasped concepts, and both are linked to pages that explore what they mean in various cultures.
• It is just peculiar that you keep calling child abuse laws "western." Please enlighten me by identifying the non-western, pro-sex-with-children Shangri La that you are thinking of each time you type this.
• You've made the same changes a few times now, and I've responded to them a few times. Unless you get some new ideas, from here on in it's just going to be straightup reverts.
• Tjstrf: God yes, please archive all this nonsense! DanB†DanD 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan

You wrote:

• It's inaccurate that "sex between a adult and a minor" normally defines abuse

Yet in the definition that YOU YOURSELF have sanctioned, the paragraph states that: "Although statutes differ in detail, all sex between an adult and a young child is held to be abusive under the law regardless of the use of physical force." And what exactly is a "young" child, btw? From what legistlation do you derive such wording?

• It's inaccurate that exceptions to this are always defined by age or by difference in age - they are often determined by type of sex (penetrative/non-penetrative/etc.) or by type of relationship (custodial/non-custodial/marriage) or by a court's judgement of exploitation or coercion.

Mention these other exceptions then, instead of just deleting references to the ones I mention. I think you are probably just being pedandic because it suits your ends. CSA law virtually alway comes down to age, whether we are talking about penetrative sex or not. You use the word "often"? I know of no cases where the judge let the offender off because he deemed the sexual activity non-exploitative/non-coercive. And in any case, exploitation/coercision is to a great extent decided upon by considering the age of the younger partner involved in the sexual activity, rather than the type of sex.

• To place a idea in the lead paragraph is to treat it as if it has broad acceptance and is part of the consensus definition of the article's subject.

No it isn't. It is to accept that the definition you are pushing is not a universally accepted view, as the current lead paragraph pretends.

• Just saying "It's controversial" does not change this - it implies that mainstream legal and psych circles are divided on the question, which is even more misleading.

It implies nothing of the sort. These views, published by respected authors and researchers, are controversial and not widely accepted. That's all I am attempting to point out.

• "Young child" is not equivalent to "minor" or to "person under the age of consent," so if you want to change it, you can't just plug one of those terms into my sentence because the sentence will become nonsensical. You're right that "young child" has no single global definition, but then no more does "minor." Both are common, easily grasped concepts, and both are linked to pages that explore what they mean in various cultures.

You are using "young child" as part of your broad definition of CSA. What, exactly, is a "young" child? There is no universal consensus on the definition of this very vague term. There IS a clear definition of a "minor", even though this depends upon juristiction. Can we at least agree on this?

• You've made the same changes a few times now, and I've responded to them a few times. Unless you get some new ideas, from here on in it's just going to be straightup reverts.

I have tried to find better wording each time in an attempt to bring a more balanced view that more people could accept, but people seem to be letting their emotions on this subject inform the only "kind" of definition of CSA they will accept. I will continue to make small changes where I notice problems, as all editors do. Any automatic-reverting on your part will be no more than unilateral pushing of the particular POV you are trying to present as solid fact.

-Neural 13:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you responded point-by-point, to everything except this:

• • • It is just peculiar that you keep calling child abuse laws "western." Please enlighten me by identifying the non-western, pro-sex-with-children Shangri La that you are thinking of each time you type this.

If the definition I've suggested does not apply, where does it not apply?

Also, are you aware of the existence of articles called age of consent and statutory rape? Detailed exploration of age-of-consent issues would be much, much more on-topic in those articles.

However: does anybody else think "young child" is unclear? It's true that it's not a legal term. I thought it was a common enough concept not to need a definition, but perhaps it does. What alternate language do people suggest?

DanB†DanD 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point about the use of the word "western" - that's why I didn't respond to it and allowed it to stand. However, the current CSA definition does seem heavily reliant on the view of American culture/law in particular. I worry that this is not a global view. Sadly, there are not many Japanese or African editors working on this page, by the looks of it - and I'm no expert on other cultural views of "CSA", or whether their term for it would even be equivalent.

"Young" child is not only meaningless in law; it is also just meaningless in this context. It's like saying all "short" pieces of string are now illegal in Timbuktu. How short is short? How young is young? Is a 7 year old a "young" child? Yes? If so, what about 8? Or 9? 10? 12? 14? These ages are all arguably "young", but a 14 year old in many European countries can have sex with anyone of any age, without any mention of CSA.

And I still think the lead paragraph creates the assumption for readers that the current dominant view of CSA is accepted by all and challenged by nobody. Could somebody please try to figure out a way to correct this while still appeasing those who find all dissent on this to be "evil"? I'm getting tired of trying.

Thanks for the reply, Dan.

-Neural 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like "young child" you have got to rewrite the whole sentence. "Minor" makes no sense in it. "Minor" means under eighteen in all U.S. states and most of Europe and the old Commonwealth, and it means under twenty in Japan.

DanB†DanD 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just say "child" and don't add the young distinction. When you say young, it sounds like you are trying to push the line lower than it actually is. --tjstrf 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I chose "young child" because the word "child" sometimes is used as a synonym for legal minor in the press, so I thought child by itself might lead to people making Neural's mistake. But he did anyway, so whatever!

Just so's we're clear. The age beneath which all sexual contact is held to be abuse no matter what is 14 in California (where the age of consent is 18). It is 13 in Michigan (where the age of consent is 16). It is 12 in Holland (where the age of consent is 16). It is 13 in Japan (where the federal age of consent is also 13). And so on.

DanB†DanD 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Blimey - it looks like this lead paragraph needs a re-write, if only to clarify exactly what we are talking about. There are too many vague terms and grey areas that could mean anything the reader wanted them to mean.

Two problems lines:

• Child sexual abuse is illegal in most countries.' -Yet there is no definition of CSA that applies globally or any one international law that we can cite. Perhaps better would be something like: "Most countries have a law against child sexual abuse, or an equivalent."

• Although statutes differ in detail, all sexual contact between an adult and a child is held to be abusive under the law regardless of the use of physical force. -Yet, as Dan pointed out above, it's not so much that "all sexual contact between an adult and a child is held to be abusive under the law" but that "all sexual contact between an adult and a person under an arbitrary age limit is held to be abusive under the law regardless of the use of physical force". Is there any better way of wording this?

Btw, don't those two lines contradict each other? The first line tells us that most (ie, not all) countries have a CSA law. The second implies that all sex between a child (of a certain age) and an adult is always held to be abusive everywhere in the world.

Does anyone else agree that the current lead paragraph is rather muddled, unbalanced, and misleading?

-Neural 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found a global definition!

The U.N. study of violence against children[3], in its Word Bank [4], defines "Sexual abuse of children" as:

"Any kind of sexual activity done to children, especially by someone who is responsible for them, or has power over them, that they should be able to trust"

The U.N. study will hopefully be useful for making this page a LOT more truly global in scope. It has sections on many different areas. Please dig in, everyone! DanB†DanD 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be global, but it's also so vague as to be practically useless... regardless, good find Dan. --tjstrf 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What's vague about it? You rule, Dan! Herostratus 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a "person you should be able to trust". Namely, the use of should. Should by whose standards? If by "should" we mean ideally, then in a perfect world, that would be everyone. If we mean under some lesser ideal, then whose? Basically, that's not a legal definition, it's more of an emotional one. --tjstrf 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the definition is from the part of the UN site intended as a teaching tool for children, which I would guess is why simple language is used. However, "position of trust" is a legal term relevant to child sexual abuse under law in at least the UK [5] and the US [6].

We may once again have quarrels over cultural variation in the meaning of "child," but really I think appending "as defined under local culture and law" to every third word is pointless. "Murder" may be defined differently in the Chinese and American legal codes, but there is no need to stipulate the exact differences every time murder is discussed in a global sense - the basic commonality is very easily grasped.

Too, I'd just like to gently point out that the UN's definition is pretty much the same as the APA's definition, which is pretty much the same as the Canadian legal definition. We still need more sources, but it's looking to me like an international consensus is emerging. DanB†DanD 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a bit of trouble find the relevant part of the UN report. So to save time for others, here's a link to the pdf file of the section on child sexual abuse [7]. However, useful specifics about different countries may also be in the regional reports.

Here is the beginning of the definitional section.

In its policy Save the Children defines child sexual abuse and exploitation as: "..the imposition of sexual acts, or acts with sexual overtones, by one or more persons on a child."

Child sexual abuse refers to the immediate abusive act against a child and forms the basis of the exploitation of the child; it includes indecent touching, penetration and sexual torture, as well as indecent exposure, using sexually explicit language towards a child and showing children pornographic material. People sexually abusing children may have an emotional or professional relationship with the child, where they exploit their position of trust and power. Children may, however, be sexually exploited by abusers or third parties having a commercial or other exploitative interest in the child.

The legal age of consent defines when a child is regarded mature enough to consent to

mutually desired sexual relations. In some countries the legal age of consent is as low as 12 years and the socially accepted age may be even lower. In ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child, States Parties have, however, committed themselves to protecting any child under the age of 18 from all forms of sexual abuse.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child article says that 192 countries - all of the UN except the USA - have signed on to the document. DanB†DanD 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although these laws differ in detail, all set an age - typically near puberty - under which all sexual contact with adults is abusive. - excellent. This is much clearer. My only objection now is that no dissent is mentioned, even though there are some noteable names and groups who do dissent. The lead paragraph has improved a lot, though - I salute all the hard work! -Neural 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Nice work all. Just a note, according to my sources the AOC in Iowa is 14.

Model Article

I suggest that the articles on incest and pedophilia be modelled on the way that this one has been written and structured. This article is not only NPOV in how it covers individual points, but neutral in what it actually covers. I have made three changes, available here, to make the article clearer. Otherwise, I suggest that an article on Intergenerational sex be written. This would be a good place to describe adult - minor sex out of it's legal context, along with other relationships that may be considered taboo, or acceptable. --Jim Burton 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cutting unsourced section

I just cut a section that's been fact-tagged for a while. Without references, it looks pretty darned POV. I'm pasting it here in case the original editor or somebody else wants to track down references for these claims. DanB†DanD 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The great majority of offenders fit into the regressed category. Only between 2-10% percent of all offenders are fixated. A few have noted that the primary division between "regressed" or "fixated" offenders seems to rest on two criteria: the offending person's ability to successfully live a socially acceptable lifestyle before committing the crime and the person's primary sexual preference. These categorizations also assume the act is a crime in the jurisdiction they reside in. These terms generally do not encompass the full range of possible scenarios and merely attempt to label easily identifiable situations. A growing number of minor-attracted adults feel that the two main classifications are a direct result from the lack of understanding and/or bias in the mainstream regarding intergenerational sexual attraction in western society and thus are categorically flawed.

Well, lets get down some good data on the proportions, at least. As far as the prison population of child sex offenders goes, the proportion of pedophiles is very small. Okami notes this in his observation of 13 studies. I have a better source for this, but it's currently offline at MHAMic. This is obviously in conflict with Lanning, who despite saying that only 90% of child molesters are true pedophiles, adds that fixated offenders tend to victimise more. --Jim Burton 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you seem to have accidentally reverted the article to it's old, undesired form, in one of your edits --Jim Burton 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I took out your brief addition to the discussion of the Teicher studies when I provided a more detailed version of the information. DanB†DanD 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange, the unsourced section that you removed showed up earlier today (even though I was not viewing the history), but it seems to be OK now. --Jim Burton 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)