Talk:Child-on-child sexual abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.


WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub This page has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
⚖
Law Portal
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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale.
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Contents

[edit] PAW Tag?

I saw that this article has been added to Pedophilia Article Watch. If I understand the term correctly, doesn't pedophilia mean adult with a prepubescent child? This article isn't related to this matter, as this is children with children. So does this tag belong? Legitimus 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

At first, I was going to say no, that the PAW tag does not belong. But I quickly changed my mind to, yes, it does belong. While that tag is almost like predicting that either one of these children will be pedophiles, that tag was most likely added mainly because of the information in this article stating that most of these children who abused other children were sexually abused themselves...by adults, and that that is the cause of their abuse of other children.
Also, it's well-documented that a significant number of pedophiles were sexually abused as children by adults, so all of that is why that tag belongs attached to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As the person who added the tag I think it is highly relevant, much of this jsyut being outcome of child sexual abuse and anyway we don't have to ref for inclusion on Project space like we do for articles. If Gibraltar can be included in Project Spain this article can be included at PAW. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony in NPOV

There have been a series of edits recently both to improve pacing and wording, and to make the article supposedly more neutral. The improvements are much appreciated. However, the NPOV edits appear so extreme as to seem subversive, and feel as though they undermine the article's meaning. It seems like they are eliminating every single detail that cannot be directly quoted from medical research and wording everything to say "or so those quack scientists say" rather that simply stating something as fact. I offer for comparison Hypoglycemia which says a great deal in a direct manner without having to reference every single sentence in the article. Legitimus (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Per our verifiability policy, any claim which is likely to be challenged requires a reliable source. Hypoglycemia is just an example of an article which doesn't yet meet the standards of this policy.
It's important to be precise in the Effects section, because the studies cited are not conclusive - their methodologies are seriously flawed. For instance, the sample of the first is clinical. 'Victims' who have been clinically-referred - indeed even 'victims' who are known at all - are likely to have had more negative experiences than the general population of COCSA 'victims.' Second, COCSA is associated with an "array of characteristics indicative of parental and familial distress." This is a confounding variable that undoubtedly exaggerated the effect size found in the study. Lastly, the sample was not compared to a control group of 'non-abused' children.
Let's allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the bare findings of the study. Anything else is POV. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Granted, though I have many more articles I can add when I have the time, and it is a shame that my own education and experience as a provider counts for nothing here. Also, the readership of this particular article is (in my estimation) going to be limited because the subject is not well known in popular circles, one of the common flaws of wikipedia. There's likely only a few kinds of person who would edit this article... Legitimus (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Have you read this? (It's relevant to my interpretation of your last sentence.) AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's what I meant, but this article is useful and I'll keep it in mind when I get new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Sources

There have been several sources added that do not seem directly relevant, on account that they lack critical distinctions between specific activities (and sometimes ages of participants). For example, intercourse vs. masturbation or role playing. What do you think? And please, can other users comment? There has to be more than two users reading this article. Legitimus (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to take a look. Which of the references do you find of concern? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okami et al., which lumps "playing house" and and some other sex role play with actual sexual activity (intercourse, oral sex, etc.) all together to make it's assertion. Okami states that he did this because the sample who reported attempted intercourse was too small to be useful.
The Swedish study also fails to make this distinction, though ironically in confirms coercive sex play of any kind is felt as harmful.
In addition, the Rind source (it's not the infamous Rind et al 1998, but rather a later rebuttal) does not appear to me to support the assertion placed in the article, and indeed seems to say the opposite about how precocious sex leads to more problems. In even quotes a Resnick and Blum (1994) study supporting this. Legitimus (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The "House" included in Okami's study is described as a sex game, so it's likely the kind that pretexts for sexual exploration... and I have no idea where you got the idea that the Swedish paper includes roleplaying. It doesn't.
Rind et al. do not say that precocious sex can lead to more problems. They point out that it's associated with certain problems, and then say: "Of importance is that there is no indication or argument by these researchers that precocious sex causes other problems. Instead, it is a correlate of other problems with the common cause of personality, home, and social environmental factors."
If Jack-A-Roe's edits are to stay, however, then Larsson and Okami should be removed, because they do not address coercive activities specifically. I was under the impression that this article concerned the wingnut contention that voluntary sexual contact among children is traumatic. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. I didn't notice that Legitimus had already changed consensual to "normative." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "normative" was key word that seemed missing. A relative term yes, but there just has to be a line drawn somewhere. There's big difference between truly playing doctor and holding someone down and groping them (which I have heard a patient call "playing doctor"). Kids touch and explore, but when they start imitating directed adult-like sexual behavior, that's different. Legitimus (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Holding someone down for sexual purposes is clearly both "non-normative" and non-consensual. The latter seems like a more appropriate line. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I realized, the Rind rebuttal article quoted appears on ipce (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation). I don't really call that a neutral source. Was this originally publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Further, it simply states the quote used as an observation, but no research was done to support said claim. What I mean by that is, he is making a educated but falsifiable statement, as other authors would disagree on his observation(more on that later). Legitimus
Ipce (previously IPCE, "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation") redistributes peer-reviewed material. Rind (2001) was originally published in the APA's Psychological Bulletin.
I don't see the relevance of your other point to Wikipedia policy. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larsson and Okami

I noticed that these two edits were reverted and then restored. I concur with these two edits:

Okami should be removed because it does not address abuse, it addresses normative sex play, and the above rewording of the reference to the Larsson material is more accurate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't. For one, Legitimus's revision is factually incorrect. 13% of the study participants "had had a nonconsensual sexual experience with another child," and 8.2% had initiated one. 4% was the percent of all subjects who felt their contact had an unfavourable effect.
Normative cannot be defined objectively, so all research on child peer sexual contacts is relevant to this article. In Larrson's article, 2 in 5 students felt their experiences were abnormal, yet only 1 in 25 reported a negative effect.
And speaking of relevance, the "Rind et al." in Dallam's comment fills out to Rind et al. (1998). Why is it presented here as a complaint against Rind et al. (2001)? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus on this talk page about how to interpret or paraphrase the papers, there's no way to productively add them to the article, leading to see-saw reverting that is a waste of everyone's time.

The best way to proceed with this would be to examine each of the references, with quotations from the source text, and agree here on how to paraphrase them so they can be used, or perhaps, that they would be best omitted. If we can't reach agreement, we should invite more editors to join in.

I've stated my views above about the references, but I am open to reconsidering, if you provide more specific quotes to support your contentions. Regarding the Rind question, the entire 2001 Rind report is his response to Dallam, so it is appropriate to mention them together. Again with that question, specific quotes to identify the reason for including them or not would be helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting my contentions

Like this?

--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the variability of what can be considered "abusive" peer sexual activity, I believe this quote from a summary of Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions is illustrative:

Moreover, victimilogists scrutinize even childhood sexual experiences among peers for signs of potential abuse. Sexual behavior among children once considered harmless is now redefined as pathological, and clinicians classify children as young as 4 years old as “offenders” for exhibitionism or other sexual behaviors with other children. Activist-researchers urge parents to report and investigate sexual interaction between children, and without evidence warn that childhood sex play may be a breeding ground for pedophilia and future sex offenders. [...] The theme has been picked up by the media. For example, covering recent research, an American newspaper wrote, "For a long time most people wrote it off as just 'playing doctor.' Now we know better. Children as young as 4 and 5 are sexually abusing other children."

The inconsistency in definitions is reviewed more extensively in Okami's Child Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse (1992). Johnson (1989) classifies initiators of consensual sex play with other children under 9, who, she says, are "too young too realize [they are] being violated" as "perpetrators," even when there is no coercion or significant age discrepancy. Johnson (1991) labels several boys as "child perpetrators" at least partly on the basis of their "sexually provocative verbal behavior with other children" - i.e., "talking about sex," as was studied by Larrson. The same author in 1991 defined several of Larrson's studied behaviors as abnormal - "keeps asking people [sexual questions] even after parent has answered questions at age-appropriate level; interest in watching bathroom functions does not wane in [a matter of] days/ weeks; humping other children with clothes on; [...] continuous fascination with nude pictures; sex talk gets child in trouble [...] simulated or real intercourse with another child."

Okami points out that "virtually any childhood sexual activity may potentially be defined as sexual abuse according to the criteria outlined by these investigators." He goes on, "Moreover, although it is true, as Johnson and Cantwell assert, that universal agreement does not exist as to what constitutes "norms" for childhood sexual development and behavior, anthropological, sociological, ethological, and medical data suggest that the majority of human children engage in sexual behaviors of some sort unless effective prohibitions are applied against them (Currier, 1981; Ford & Beach, 1951; Gadpaille, 1975; Kinsey, et al., 1948; 1953; Marshall & Suggs, 1971; Martinson, 1976; Money, 1986, 1988; Reinisch, 1990). Such behaviors, termed sexual rehearsal play by Money and Erhardt (1972), apparently are tolerated more often than not throughout the world (Currier, 1981; Ford & Beach, 1951). ... Most of the behaviors alluded to here under the rubric sexual rehearsal play--"exhibitionism," mutual masturbation, genital exploration, attempts at intercourse and actual intercourse--fall well within definitions of "perpetration behavior" proposed by writers such as Johnson, Cantwell, and Gil."

Clearly, it would be POV for us to decide what is the norm, and exclude all that fits it from this article... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather that toss the whole thing though, can we leave the defining of normative vs. not to the reader? Perhaps add language to indicate a broader encompassing of cultures. It seems you fear a misinterpretation by the reader of this article, which I can understand, but are it looks overall like overcompensating for it. Again, I think a major failing of this article is the lack of editors. Legitimus (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That would, of course, entail *not* excluding research like Larrson's and Okami's because of our perception that some of their studied behaviors are normative. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
sounds like someone's poker buddies with Loki. Come on, this has to be defined in social work or something similar. 69.140.209.23 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Loki's Wager is not a fallacy when neutrality is necessary, as on Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okami's remarks are why I did not quote Gil or Johnson in the first place. However, there is a study that does offer very comprehensive definitions, Araji (1997) that I feel are better. I need to get a copy since it's a full book; more later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As with most controversial topics, there are more than one POV, even in the scientific literature. When that happens, the Wikipedia way is to note the multiple POV's, without undue weight.

That said, there is no question that there exist definitions of "child-on-child sexual abuse" that differentiate it from "sexual rehearsal play", and that it is recognized as a form of abuse, not "play", and that it can and does cause harm to some children sometimes in childhood and sometimes in adulthood.

The quote posted in bold by AnotherSolipsist 00:39, that sexual play is considered by some to be perpetrator behavior is a red herring. If a 9 year old kid coerces or forces a 4 year old into sexual behavior, that's not play, it's abuse. The play behaviors may occur with some degree of coercion within small age differences and still be seen as non-abusive, but when the age or power differential exceeds some threshold, the abusive element becomes obvious. All of this needs to be sourced of course, but the point is there is no reason to obscure the topic of the article, sexual abuse of a child by another, by extended discussions and detailed referencing of normative child sex play. That other topic can and should be addressed in child sexuality. Where there is an overlap or gray area, as to for example, how much power or age difference is needed before the acts are clearly termed abuse, that can be addressed here appropriately in context. But non-abusive, non-coercive sexual rehearsal play between children of similar ages and power is off-topic for this article other than a short mention in passing to show contrast from the actions and effects of abuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Indeed, I read over Shaw et al. (2000) in full again, and found that abusive behavior is defined not only by Shaw but the National Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offending as follows: "sexual acts perpetrated on another without consent, without equality, or as a result of coercion." That's pretty solid to me, because coercion alone is a tad too narrow. For example, what if the victim is unconscious or incapacitated for one reason or another. I also take this to include trickery and exploitation of another's ignorance, as these would represent a lack of equality in power. Are we in agreement? Legitimus (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I support the use of that definition and reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Okami and Larrson are not relevant to the latest revision. Jack's strawman above overlooked the entire basis of my argument: that coercion, not "normality," defines actual COCSA. When COCSA is used to mean anything that's not normal, everything can be considered COCSA. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not be confrontational. We were getting hung up on use of certain words. "coercive" seemed too limiting to me initially, but I could not put my finger on why until I read more information. "non-normative" seemed ok, but it's too relative and covers non-abuse (like excessive masturbation in public). Hopefully this revision works. Legitimus (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed your revision and concur with the way you worded it. I added a wikilink to the article on coercion that provides some good general context for the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion or re-title discussion on PAW project page

An editor has suggested deleting or re-titling this page, at this link on the Pedophila Article Watch Wikiproject page.

Comments are welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a few references found that could be of use in this article

In replying to the PAW project page discussion noted above, I found some references that could be useful here. I'm not adding them to the article right now, but here they are in case someone else wants to use them:

"Conclusions: Children victimized by other children manifested elevated levels of emotional and behavioral problems and were not significantly different from those who had been sexually abused by adults."
"Conclusions: The findings suggest that child peer sexual abuse may be associated with adverse outcomes."
"A substantial proportion of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by adolescents and even younger children.... Important findings that emerged from this investigation are that victims of both adult and juvenile perpetrators suffer an array of negative, psychological and behavioral sequelae. "
  • Weiner, Irving B. et al, Handbook of Psychology, p437, John Wiley and Sons 2003:
"Factors that suggest national incidence figures represent an understimate of child sexual abuse victims include the exclusion of child-on-child sexual abuse data, as well as victims' and professionals' underreporting."
  • Ellis, Rodney A. et al, Essentials of Child Welfare, p49, John Wiley and Sons 2003:
"Child-on-child sexual abuse has become relatively common in child welfare cases. It may occur within the family or by another child outside the family... Disturbingly, it also happens to children in foster care."

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EFFECTS

I just want to say that the effects describe by the article ARE CORRECT I have experienced all of them and I think the point missed is the trickery,force or threats by the aggressor effect the victim in no less a harsh way then if it were a 90 year old abuse is abuse maybe because the criminal is young makes the effects on the victem less no.I think about it every day I used heroin have weighed upto 300lbs now I'm sober and 180 but my depression and anxiety are like a lead vest as the memories are too.my memories are clear as day and I've never told anyone face to face.Sorry my main point is the effects listed are no different then normal Sexual Violence by adults at least to the victem . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's quite ridiculous (not to mention harmful) to generalize the effects of your experience onto every victim of COCSA. I could just as (in)validly do the same with an anecdote of a person who experienced no such effects. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though while anecdotal evidence is not valid, this user's remarks are somewhat consistent with Shaw et al. (2004). Calling the effects exactly the same would be a misrepresentation, though. For instance, there are more "performance" problems, shall we say, with COCSA. However, on a more personal note, User:66.66.116.58, if you are continuing to have anxiety and other symptoms, you should really seek help from a mental health professional. It's just better safe than sorry. Legitimus (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)