Talk:Child-on-child sexual abuse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanielleGonzalez24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janiarhodes. Peer reviewers: TimeshaS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Larsson and Okami

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

• 13:32, 27 February 2008 Legitimus (Talk | contribs) (8,686 bytes) (On second thought, this should be under prevalence.)
• 13:20, 27 February 2008 Legitimus (Talk | contribs) (8,657 bytes) (→Effects: One reference not needed anymore with emphasis on coercion. Larrson reworded for the matter at hand)

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)

Supporting my contentions

Like this?

Larrson

The most common feelings connected to sexual activities together with other children were excitement, feeling silly/giggly, pleasant body sensations, feeling good/fine, and appreciation of the event as natural (Table V). Boys more frequently reported pleasant body sensations than girls did ([[chi].sup.2][1] = 3.83, p = .050), whereas girls felt more guilty about their activities, especially in the younger age group ([[chi].sup.2][1] = 5.75, p = .017). However, girls also more often reported feelings of excitement than boys did ([[chi].sup.2][1] = 6.58, p = .010). [...] Of the respondents, 34 (13%) reported that they, before the age of 13, had had a nonconsensual sexual experience with another child, where they had been tricked, persuaded, bribed, threatened, forced, or otherwise coerced to engage. The gender difference was significant ([[chi].sup.2][1] = 5.26, p = .022), with girls experiencing more coercive activities (7% of the boys and 18% of the girls). "Humping" or pretending intercourse was the most common coerced activity reported by girls, comprising 64% of all coerced activities for the girls. The boys' experiences were more spread between different behaviors. Most of the children (20/34) were coerced into doing one or two different things, whereas in single cases they had to participate in a wide range of behaviors. [... The most common way to lead the child into the sexual activities was to trick the child (38.5%) or to tease and bribe (38.2%). Verbal threats (12.8%) or physical force (20.5%) were also quite common strategies. Only two children reported that they had been in some way physically hurt during the experience. [...] In 8.2% (6.3% of all boys and 9.9% of all girls), of all answers the respondents stated being involved in coercive sexual activities where they had been the initiators who led another child to the activity. [...] The students were asked about their present feelings, thinking back on their childhood sexual experiences. A majority of the young adults felt that their sexual experiences as a child were normal (60%). A third (33%) said the feelings associated with their sexual experiences in childhood were good at present. Twenty-eight percent said they felt nothing and 6% thought it was no good experience, whereas 20% felt sad, guilty, regretful, or confused about their childhood sexual experience. Of those who had had sexual experiences with another child before the age of 13, nearly a third (30%) thought it had had a positive effect on them as an adult sexual person. Another 66% did not believe it had either positive or negative effects, whereas 4% apprehended the effects as negative. In the latter group all but one had taken part in sexual encounters with other children where they had been in some way coerced into participation and in one case the respondent had been the initiator. [...] 6-10 years Item Boys Girls Talking about sex 29.9 28.2 Kissing and hugging 33.9 44.4 Looking at pornographic pictures 22.0 12.7 Teasing at school by peeking in toilets, 26.8 13.4 lifting skirts, using sex words "Humping" or pretending intercourse 20.5 28.9 Showing genitals 28.3 22.5 Watching people in bathroom, bedroom, 6.3 5.6 etc. who were unaware of your presence Other child touching your genitals 16.5 19.0 Touching, exploring genitals of 16.5 19.0 other child You inserting objects into vagina/ 10.2 4.2 rectum of another child Vaginal intercourse 3.9 0.7 Anal intercourse 3.2 -- Putting penis in other child's mouth 4.7 Other child putting penis in your mouth 2.4 1.4 Other child inserting objects into your 1.6 2.1 vagina/rectum Sexual contact with animal/s 0.8 0.7 ... 11-12 years Item Boys Girls p Talking about sex 55.1 53.5 Kissing and hugging 40.2 45.8 Looking at pornographic pictures 56.7 22.5 *** Teasing at school by peeking in toilets, 37.8 24.6 * lifting skirts, using sex words "Humping" or pretending intercourse 20.5 19.0 # Showing genitals 11.0 7.0 ss Watching people in bathroom, bedroom, 13.4 3.5 ** etc. who were unaware of your presence Other child touching your genitals 10.2 4.9 Touching, exploring genitals of 9.4 4.9 other child You inserting objects into vagina/ 4.7 1.4 rectum of another child Vaginal intercourse 3.2 0.7 Anal intercourse 3.2 -- * Putting penis in other child's mouth 3.2 Other child putting penis in your mouth 2.4 -- Other child inserting objects into your 1.6 0.7 vagina/rectum Sexual contact with animal/s 0.8 0.7 ... Feelings About Mutual Sexual Experiences (%) Age 6-10 Age 11-12 Feeling Boys Girls p Boys Pleasant body sensations 21.1 25.3 25.3 Excited (not sexually) 38.2 57.9 * 48.4 Natural 19.7 18.9 18.9 Good/fine 19.7 14.7 25.3 Silly/giggly 25.0 37.9 25.3 Sexually stimulated 5.3 2.1 10.5 Guilty 6.6 14.7 2.1 Confused 6.6 8.4 2.1 Scared 7.9 5.3 3.2 Bad 2.1 3.8 -- Unpleasant body sensations 2.6 3.2 1.1 Didn't like it 3.9 1.1 1.1 Mad/angry 1.3 2.1 -- Age 11-12 Feeling Girls p Pleasant body sensations 14.3 * Excited (not sexually) 36.2 Natural 20.0 Good/fine 16.2 Silly/giggly 22.9 Sexually stimulated 5.7 Guilty 10.5 * Confused 4.8 Scared 1.0 Bad 1.0 Unpleasant body sensations -- Didn't like it -- Mad/angry --

--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)

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)

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:

• Child on child sexual abuse: psychological perspectives, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 24, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1591-1600:

"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."

• Child peer sexual abuse: Preliminary data on outcomes and disclosure experiences:

"Conclusions: The findings suggest that child peer sexual abuse may be associated with adverse outcomes."

• Child-on-child sexual abuse: An investigation of behavioral and emotional sequelae:

"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)

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)

I have to agree with AnotherSolipsist, as I was arguably coerced several times during my childhood, some of the memories I dislike, but many I actually enjoy. I know this sounds odd, but looking at this article I don't exhibit any of the symptoms mentioned. --99.138.131.193 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly different people rationalize traumatic experiences differently. Schoolstage (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

i think this should be researched a little more.. get some statisics and just more information. Closchen (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Casey Loschen

Hello. I recently added a comment in the opening paragraph that stated that if a child was "playing doctor" for some sort of sexual gratification, then it could be deemed as child on child sexual abuse. I then cited two distinct articles with examples of this happening to a 10 year old girl and a six year old boy. My edits were deleted within five minutes. Is there a reason why? Let me know and I will be happy to change it! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Wallin (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I already told you why I reverted you; here, here and here. It's all in this article's edit history. Re-dding the material was a mistake, which is why I reverted it again. Medically, "playing doctor" does not include what you described. This article makes that clear and so does the Playing doctor article. Also notice that the Playing doctor article mentions that children have been labeled sex offenders for what they and/or their parents' described as playing doctor? People misusing the term "playing doctor" does not mean that we should be so irresponsible as to misuse it. Your text makes the assertion that playing doctor can also be a part of child sexual abuse, which is the exact opposite of what this article states; and that's a problem. You should not be engaging in any WP:Synthesis. You should be seeking WP:MEDRS (medical)-compliant sources for a medical claim. And when relaying legal/media stuff like you are relaying, the text should not be going against what the medical community states without being clear that it is a contrast to what they state. Your text also does not belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD. A bit of other stuff in the lead should be moved lower as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Incapable of knowing about specific sex acts without an external source

This phrase is rubbish. If you didn't tell a child anything, they would know everything when they've grown up?--95.116.231.217 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You might think it is rubbish, however it does have three sources. And I wonder if your thinking it is rubbish, is based on a misunderstanding. The sentence just says that if you don't tell a child, for instance about anal sex, they would not know anything about it. Lova Falk talk 17:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

[ WP:EDIT CONFLICT ]. It's not rubbish because the point is that they don't know these things as children without having been exposed to them. If we took a group of people (a large group or otherwise) and had them grow up in an environment where sexuality was never discussed and there was no exposure to it in any form, then those people would not know of sexual things either...other than possibly discovering masturbation on their own and/or hormones guiding them to interact sexually with each other. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

2 questions

I have 2 questions on this issue.

1) Does it count if it is, in a strange situation, a younger child doing it on an older child?

2) Does poking someone in the belly button also count?

Wikipedia is not a forum for personal discussions of the topic nor is it an advice column (WP:NOTADVICE). The sources used by the article are quite clear that the age of the "perpetrator" is irrelevant. The dynamic between two people is complex and affected by many variables besides age that contribute to whether actions constitute abuse. If the article does not make that clear, then please suggest how we can improve that, though it should be verifiable in some way.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the IP's comment since the second question seemed like WP:Trolling. And even now thinking that the IP may have meant using the penis to sexually poke someone in the belly button, as a form of non-penetrative sex, I still find that second question to be WP:Trolling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child-on-child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714203419/http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/loveline/mp3/loveline_20071105_low.mp3 to http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/loveline/mp3/loveline_20071105_low.mp3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Pam Bailey Davis, regarding this, you need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. The source you used for the lead is poor and the text you added is somewhat redudunant to what is already in the lead. And regarding this when a source is specifically about the prevalence in the United States, another country, or a few countries, we should make that clear, not present that prevalence material as pertaining to the world at large. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed the UNH paper and have some concerns as well. It's not a bad paper, but the assertion might be just a bit off the mark for what the article change claims. I believe the "1/3" statistic is in reference to page 6, which indicates 36% of sexual crimes (forcible and non-forcible) against juveniles are perpetrated by other juveniles. However, for purposes of this paper, "juvenile" means any person under 18. This is potentially over-inclusive and may depart from the real concept the article was going for, that of prepubescents or at least very young adolescents that don't entirely realize what they're doing against other prepubescents. It would include post-pubescent victims, which are significantly more common overall according to this paper so would seriously skew the results, as well as late teen consensual sex which is criminalized in a few states such as California.Legitimus (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree about the text being redundant, since it clarifies some distinctions that are not made otherwise. I concede that the source I utilized should be changed and I'm happy to do that. As for the 1/3 stat, I am happy to add that caveat that this refers to the United States, but I felt that it was complete misinformation to say that "no one knows" how prevalent it is as the text read before, because that simply isn't true. There are stats on child-on-child sexual abuse in literally every country. That entire section seems much more a matter of opinion than fact. The sources utilized within that section are older information and the conclusions drawn seem to be a bit of a stretch or downright inaccurate. Especially the line about disclosure being rare when the source for that is a study of a mere 41 survivors of sexual abuse. There are many more current studies that actually say the exact opposite. As I said, I'm happy to correct my errors, but I do feel that questioning the legitimacy of my source (which is a study by one of the leading researchers in child sexual abuse) seems a bit condescending when compared to the other sources in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam Bailey Davis (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I stated "somewhat redundant," and it clearly was since the preceding text is already clear that there is no equality, including with regard to age, and that the abuse includes physical or emotional coercion. Your text also didn't align with the preceding text well didn't seamlessly align with the preceding text. I state this because the preceding text relays states, "While this includes when one of the children uses physical force, threats, trickery or emotional manipulation to elicit cooperation, it also can include non-coercive situations where the initiator proposes or starts a sexual act that the victim does not understand the nature of and simply goes along with, not comprehending its implications or what the consequences might be." Your text stated, "This type of abuse usual occurs without consent, without equality (in age, size, or ability), or as a result of physical or emotional coercion." But what is consent between two prepubescents, or between a prepubescent and underage pubescent? I know that the end of the lead also speaks of "thinking it was consensual," but I've just now thought that the consensual topic is something to address lower in the article if sources we use get into what they mean by that aspect.

I removed the prevalence material you added. Issues with the source is not a matter of being condescending. It's about what Legitimus and I stated. Per what Legitimus stated and WP:Synthesis, we also need to make sure that the sources we use for this topic are explicitly about child-on-child sexual abuse. Statutory rape involving a 15 and 17-year-old, for example, is a different topic. Regarding older sources, this is not a well-studied topic. So the following part of WP:MEDDATE applies: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Per WP:MEDRS, we should still look for secondary sources and tertiary sources instead of primary sources. This article is another article where I need to trade out primary sources for secondary sources and tertiary sources where I can. So it's on my to-do list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a citation

Hello!

I would be adding one or more citations to this article as it aligns with my research interests and as part of an assignment to my trauma course. I would be using reliable sources such as peer-reviewed articles with information that's pertaining to the article and adds to its comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielleGonzalez24 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to add some sources using the French article

Hello everyone,

I just want to let you know, that this article has been translated in a French version. I added some informations and sources some are in English, that might help to deepen this version. If you have questions or need help, you can answer to this topic and I would be glad to help. Kolibri libéré (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)