Pynchme, I've been reading those links you provided. The first one says:"These population-based findings provide evidence of a decline in the underlying rate of CSA in Australia. Although every measure of CSA inevitably is flawed to some extent, these trends in self-report complement official statistics that show substantial decline in recent years."

Given that this report was compiled in 2002 from data collected , why do you think there is still a strong focus on CSA (principally committed by males) when at the same time, the rate of child physical abuse and neglect, primarily within single-mother homes, has soared?

You say:"Research shows that one of the few effective tools against recidivism is social disapproval", so why is there so little disapproval of neglectful and abusive single-mothers, including from you? Why do people like you try to minimise the seriousness of such abuse, while playing up the seriousness of other, less common forms of abuse?

You say:"If nothing else it validates the victims' experience and acts to let child abusers know that social approval is not absolute."

So is it your view that victims of neglect need no such "validation" and the perpetrators need not know that they are nor socially approved? Certainly that would be a reasonable interpretation of your output to date.

As it happens, I don't think that's the case at all, merely that you're not very well equipped to think critically or to analyse what you read. It's a shame.

Here's a tip, BTW, when thinking up your bext "men being humiliated" fantasy: most men don't like their women to be in pain or humiliated, we enjoy our women enjoying themselves. You seem to have a very deviant view.

RStuart

I admire your desire to think for yourself, but as CJ mentioned, you will need to sharpen your arguments to win this debate. Protecting kids is a very emotive topic. The research that you have cited has failed to prove that viewing porn leads to sexual assault of adults. You will probably need to provide evidence that viewing child porn prevents some people from abusing kids to win this debate. The issue of the Simpson's cartoon is different.

Pynchme

I'll do you a deal. I won't generalise about feminists by using Andrea Dworkin as an example if you don't generalise about men using consumers of that particular type of porn as an example. Dworkin is quoted mainly by people trying to discredit feminism. I don't believe that I know anyone who would enjoy watching a woman being bashed.

@benk: The research that you have cited has failed to prove that viewing porn leads to sexual assault of adults.

You've lost me. Do those words reflect what you were actually thinking?

@benk: The issue of the Simpson's cartoon is different.

I presume the ACMA declaring pictures of women with small boobs because men get off on it as child porn is also "different"? Because as I said, the Simpson's cartoons is the start of a slipper slope, and the bottom of that slope is getting pretty close to where I think we should be.

Which brings us to I might hope might be achieved by this discussion. It wasn't the dropping our currently special treatment of child porn over and above the provisions in our current obscenity laws.

It was nudging people towards the realisation that this current moral panic over "think of the children" and this hysteria over anything that looks remotely like child porn is is actually doing more harm to kids than good. Locking up dads and granddads who have never hurt a kid and never will, simply because they have looked at an inappropriate picture does not help kids, families or anyone else.

So did that happen? Do you think it is possible this current hysteria over paedophilia has become so extreme it is actually harming the very people its supporters claim they are trying to protect?

RStuart

"You've lost me. Do those words reflect what you were actually thinking?"

Yep, the availability of porn increased at the same time that the incidence of sexual assault decreased. It isn't possible to conclude that one led to the other. This is basic psychology, it is hard to prove causation with a case study. I would presume that the consumption of Diet Coke also increased in the same period, but that doesn't prove that Diet Coke prevents rape either. Further to that, it is hard to generalise from what happened in Japan regarding adults to child porn and sexual abuse in Australia.

"Which brings us to I might hope might be achieved by this discussion. It wasn't the dropping our currently special treatment of child porn over and above the provisions in our current obscenity laws.
It was nudging people towards the realisation that this current moral panic over "think of the children" and this hysteria over anything that looks remotely like child porn is is actually doing more harm to kids than good."

Yes, I agree that hysteria can lead to un-necessary responses that do more harm than good. However, over the course of this debate, you have used a wide range of arguments. For example, you claimed that " kiddie porn can partially satisfy a paedophile's urges", leading to less CSA. You have a fair way to go before you will have proved that one.

Antiseptic: <"why do you think there is still a strong focus on CSA (principally committed by males) when at the same time, the rate of child physical abuse and neglect, primarily within single-mother homes, has soared?">

It hasn't soared. Notifications increased due to legislation re: mandatory reporting and the inclusion of the effects on children of domestic violence. Also, notifications received include notifications made more than once for the same child. Since mandatory reporting became a requirement, each child is likely to be the subject of multiple notifications.

Most recently, substantiations decreased. It isn't know whether that pattern will hold; too early to tell.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Social disapproval re: recidivism was in reference to child sexual abuse/ paedophilia. Research has shown that it is the single most effective way (but even then recidivism occurs) of discouraging abusers from repeating the offence.

It is one of your more ridiculous accusations that I don't disapprove of all types of child abuse. It just so happens that the topic under discussion refers to an issue of sexual abuse, and I respond to your continued minimization and disregard of that form of abuse.

In fact the categorizing of abuse into different types is misleading; sexual abuse entails emotional abuse; beatings and neglect often co-occur with sexual and emotional abuse. A mother who neglects her child is very unlikely to notice or act on her child's experience of sexual abuse.

All that said, all types of abuse except sexual abuse are more easily detected and most often linked to socio-economic conditions (Becket, 2003) and families who experience deprivation are more likely to come under scrutiny by various workers and agencies, so all types of abuse that occur in more well to do families is harder to detect.

cont'd

Cont'd:

Rates of reporting and of substantiation of child sexual abuse is very low compared to the rate, consistent over time and in several countries, reported by adults years after the fact. That is - the rate 1 in 4 or 5 females and 1 in 4 boys (that is 20 percent of all children), gathered from surveys amongst adult populations.

Research has also shown that the personal trauma arising from CSA is a significant factor in the personal histories of up to 75% of people who experience a mental illness and/or suicide.

There is a community research study that shows that the more closely related the child sex abuser is, the less likely that the victim, family or community will report it or approve of it being reported:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/discussionpaper/discussion1.html

CSA is harder than other types of abuse to detect unless there is overt physical damage; harder for children to report and describe; less likely to be taken seriously; less likely to go to trial and much less likely to obtain a conviction.

Physical abuse and neglect is likely to be noticed and acted on by GPs, teachers, health workers and such - and attract various degrees of concern and caring, ie: validation. CSA is unique in this regard.

People who experience CSA are likely to carry the secret and the pain of it alone for years: feelings of love and dread of the perpetrator; family loyalty; fear of leaving siblings behind to the abuser; fear of rocking the boat and because they are often told it will be their fault if the family breaks up... etc.

CSA is the most insidious of all forms of abuse.

Just reflect on whether you would rather have someone you trust bash you or force you to give them a head job. Neither prospect is appealing I know (sorry). Both are damaging, but which would you be most likely to report; which would be most likely to leave enough evidence to gain a conviction ? What if the unity of your friendships and family depended on whether or not you kept silent.