Talk:Child sexual abuse: Difference between revisions

	Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I believe they have in recent times passed laws against the Lolicon that was so common in Japan, that the United Nations and others did criticize them for. Since that was mentioned above, I thought I'd make a separate section for it. I'll see if I can find the news report I saw, and update the Child pornography laws in Japan. They did state that Lolicon was creating a sexual interest in child and leading to abuse. Dream Focus 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That really is a topic best discussed elsewhere. There are several articles already devoted to the topic.Legitimus (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a man abusing a girl would be more intrusive and damaging than a boy abused by a woman. Mainly because of (a) double standards in society which say a male receiving sex is admirable, and (b) because physically, it would probably not be painful for a boy to have intercourse with a woman. Pass a Method talk 11:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget same-sex abuse. With that included, you have 4 different types. You also have to factor in age ranges, both prepubescent and peri-pubescent. And the manner of the abuse (use of violence, object-rape, blackmail, abuse of trust). Also consider men and women often manifest different symptoms as the result of the abuse, or the same symptoms are reacted to differently by peers (e.g. sexual compulsion has a gender double standard, despite it being equally unhealthy for men and women). And if you think girls under-report abuse, boys are far worse.

From that matrix, as you can see is generally not possible to make a gross generalization based on gender alone. It does abused men a disservice to claim such a thing, for even if were supported even slightly in the data, it implies abused boys are less worthy of rights and empathy. It is effectively a form of minimisation. Legitimus (talk] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I don't have any specific edits to suggest, but someone should really take a good, hard look at the section on the history of child sexual abuse. The claim that it was only recognized as a problem in 1970 is patently false. Between 1890 and 1920, and again between 1935 and 1960, the American public was positively obsessed with the problem of child sexual abuse. Between 1885 and 1895, twenty-two states had increased the age of consent to sexual activity from ten years to sixteen or eighteen years, while another ten states increased the age to fourteen years. The first laws prohibited child sexual abuse were passed around 1900. In the 1950s, J. Edgar Hoover was writing essays like, "Is Your Daughter Safe?" in American Magazine. See Philip Jenkins, Moral Panic: The Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America.

Cliffordrosky (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a very reliable article because it ignores and leaves out research proving a strong connection between drug use and tendency to abuse children. The data showed that all people who been convicted of child rape had been on drugs or drunk at the time. The fact this information is left out makes this article an unreliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such data showing that 100% of abuse is done by people on drugs or drunk. If you want data that you have found to be integrated into the article, please post it here so we can see for ourselves.Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no such data. BigHornPhD (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the research presented here gathered in a non-biased fashion? In the article only one of the two major views on CSA are represented and the other is largely ignored? Cataconia (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without a missing source or suggested edit, your statement is pointless. What specific changes do you suggest or what sources are missing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. The point was that everyone who had a different view have been banned already and therefor the situation is as it is. The system is completely corrupt and nothing can be done but watching the decay. Cataconia (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your info, you seem to be one of the ritual abuse believers, I thought you guys where extinct. Cataconia (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. Undue weight is demonstrated, not asserted. If you think the article is biased, you need to provide sources that substantiate your point. Your opinion is worth nothing without a source to back it up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen then? I add the source. It gets deleted. I put it back, It gets deleted ... eventually I would get banned like so many before me because I lack admin powers and have few friends here who can ban my opponents before then ban me, I am banned, the article remains the same. So what to do? Should I spend a few years here lobbying, making friends, getting to know admins who will support me in the coming editing wars? Is that the only way to make a few changes to this article? Cataconia (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this: why not post, let's say, a single paragraph that you want to change or add, right here on the talk page? (If it's a change, maybe post the before and after versions.) Then we can talk about it. That seems reasonable, are you willing and able to do this? Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just threatened with a indefinate block for arguing that a significant minority viewpoint should be allowed in the article. Seriously, is this the state of wikipedia. It's obvious I will be banned if I make a single edit (like so many others have before me), The only question that remains is: What do you guys get out of it? I doubt someone is paying you, so why? Cataconia (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]