R0bert, the examples of sexual abuse I gave were committed by people unknown to them. And I have certainly heard of other cases which were unreported to the media - do you think that every parent of a child who has been sexually abused wants their story plastered across the papers?

Furthermore, if you are arguing that most cases of abuse are committed by persons known to the child, then don't you have a problem with Daniel's opening comment?:

"The buzz in the childcare industry in 2006 has been introducing “cutting-edge technology” to keep children safe and secure. This includes finger-print activated doors, closed circuit television in all rooms and personal records and files of all adults authorised to pick children up."

Shouldn't this be the RIGHT move, according to what you are saying?

I think that Daniel's article(s) and his upcoming book will undo far too much of the good work that has been done. Discussion of these issues is obviously welcome, but to write an entire book based on the idea that the "good old days" of child-rearing are now behind us is potentially dangerous. Words need to be chosen carefully when discussing child protection and its corresponding legislation.

Petal: the examples you give may well have been strangers. The overall statistics indicate that the vast majority of instances where sexual abuse has occurred, has come from people known to the victim.

As far as insulating yourself from these risks - there has to be a point where you stop.

Logically, anyone you meet can be a paedophile, so you shouldn't allow your kids to meet anyone - or out of your sight, ever.

The child's friends could be bad influences. Best they play alone.

It's quite dangerous riding bicycles and skateboards. Best they stay inside.

Skin cancer is on the rise in Australia. Best just stay indoors.

Life is about risks - yes, I agree, some need to be minimised. By the same token, if you go too far, then the paranoia runs the risk of creating cossetted children, incapable of looking after themselves when they grow up.

It's about finding the right balance, and I fear we are headed too far in the 'paranoia' direction.

"I fear we are headed too far in the 'paranoia' direction."

I think this is an exaggerated concept that is given far too much credence by the media - an urban myth, if you like. Your mentioning of skin cancer and bikes is interesting - how do you feel about the "SunSmart" program in primary schools, for example? Is this another example of "paranoia"? My youngest has a wide-brimmed hat that he is perfectly happy to wear in any outdoor situation when he generally goes tearing around (not wrapped in "cotton wool"). Am I being paranoid? Am I being paranoid when I insist that my kids wear their helmets when on their bikes? You are resorting to hyperbole just as much as Daniel Donahoo is.

And on that note, it is interesting to read the letters section in the latest edition of "Melbourne's Child" (and most likely in "Sydney's Child" and other sister mags) - the only two letters responding to Daniel Donahoo's other article about "idolising children" are extremely critical and successfully take his arguments apart bit by bit. I have no doubt that a similar reaction will occur upon the release of his new book. I hope he's ready to take on these arguments - and willing to adjust his own world-view, if it comes to that ...

I suppose it comes down to the perception of risk, and what is justified in averting it.

Of course, when it comes down to sunsmart programs and the like, there is no good reason not to do these programs.

It is instances where coddled children (and more importantly, over protective parents) are afraid to take risks - sometimes risk is necessary for normal development, and that's something all parents have to come to grips with.

I would argue that indeed, society is headed in that direction, and the media certainly does play a huge role in that - though I perceive it as a role which tends to exaggerate risk causing paranoia.
This is not an agenda, it's simply the fact that conflict generates interest.

Overall, Donahoo's article is pretty tame. It doesn't say anything particularly controversial, and I'm a little surprised that it generates such vehement responses.

It is more the general tone of the article - focusing on the "negatives" and not enough on the positives. For example:

"There are no longer see-saws in parks and swings will be the next to go."

The first part is actually incorrect and the second part is supposition and extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the equipment you find in children's playgrounds these days is infinitely superior to the crap we had to put up with as kids (of course I'm speaking with hindsight - no doubt we didn't realise it at the time). And the adventure playgrounds that are springing up all over the place are outstanding - kids can easily spend hours there.

The article itself is highly emotive and with almost no critical insight. If it were to be submitted as part of a uni course he would be asked to rewrite it. And I hate to be ad hominem, but I think the writer has a little more living to do before he embarks on writing as a full-time career.