Talk:Sexual abuse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

References needed

Removed from the article, for lack of reference:

In ancient China, young girls often had their feet bound in a manner that caused the big toe to stick out. The enlarged toe served as a substitute penis for the girl. Some ancient Chinese texts describe using the big toe in sexual play, leading many researchers to conclude that the practice was abusive. Others doubt that statement, and claim that this was a standard and accepted practice, and did not cause the negative effects associated with modern child sexual abuse.

Which ancient chinese texts? During which eras of footbinding? Which modern texts refer to this?

In some South Pacific island cultures, it was believed that young boys needed to swallow large amounts of semen, termed jerungdu, in order to properly mature sexually. This was accomplished by older boys receiving oral sex from the younger boys.

Vaguely recall reading something slightly similar to this ages ago, although I'd certainly want to see the references before seeing this included in a wikipedia article... Mathmo 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Which cultures? When?

THAT IS GROSS!

Someone has a sick mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs) on October 22, 2004.

Haha. You have to be American. It still amazes me how ppl are culturally conditioned react to things. I've read about this more than twice in my many years of reading psychology/sociology works, and I'm going to try to find a ref. --DanielCD 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been readded into the child sexual abuse article, this time with a proper ref. --DanielCD 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Errr... made my comment too soon, before I read this.... Although, when I look at the article I can't see this included anywhere or there reference. What happened to them?? Mathmo 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From a victim of sex abuse

I am a victim of sex abuse and in 2004 I made the biggest leap in my life and wrote a reasonably detailed article on what was going through my mind and how it affected me, this could be used in the article, or just as a reference somewhere, I am new to editing wikipedia, so at the moment I edit nothing more then the talk pages. The article is here: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/13023005/

The article apparently has helped a few new-found-friends who have suffered abuse, even completly different abuse. I think it is best being under External Links personally, should I put it there? --Kintaro 13:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heck, I added it anyway, wasnt sure how to describe it, I feel biased describing my own work, so maybe someone could care to read it and maybe edit my description of the link. --Kintaro 14:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting personal account. But I suggest you edit it a little bit (I would have suggested you post it on some wiki, but I guess collaborative editing of personal memories would be weird :-] ), fixing obvious grammar errors, structuring it better, etc. There is nothing that a simple reread and fix things that can be done better (repeat) cycle can't fix. It has the potential to be a great article, but I think it's still an early revision. Thanks for sharing the link anyway, and I hope you will work on your article a bit more. Paranoid 16:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have felt it has needed editing for some time. I may work on this in the near future. --Kintaro 07:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would be happy for others to edit it and email it to me, that would be best. I think I will fire up and edit it myself however. My grammer has been greatly improving it seems .--Kintaro 08:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just completed another revision, it is now linked from the page to another location along with a PDF copy of the document. The first primary link is to a page on my forum which is hosted on my ADSL connection, but it will always contain the latest version/revision of the article.

Alright, regarding edits, I have set up a https://kintarolabs.sytes.net/wiki/index.php/Sexual_Abuse_From_A_Victim page on my local wiki that people can freely stroll upon and vandalise, or edit grammer, spelling, whatever you see fit, or just comment and add suggestions.

Female offenders not mentioned, sexist language

I find it very disappointing that abusers in this article are invariably refered to as "he" and that female offenders aren't even mentioned.

Whether you are of the school of thought that it's not wrong for women in their 30s and 40s to have sex with 12 year old boys (the boys are "lucky" according to some), that's not the legal defintion (despite many female pedophiles and child sexual abusers getting away with it).

What does it say when a man who abuses a boy is a pedophile and child sexual abuser, but a grown woman who abuses a boy is not?

Despite the common disbeliefs, many young girls who are abused by pedophiles don't think it's wrong until they are TOLD it is wrong. This is much the same for a boy who claims he wasn't abused because he liked it. Many accept this. But if a young girl says she wasn't abused, this is (and rightly so) unacceptable. She is not in the position to say whether she was abused. It should be no different for boys.

This double standard is sexist and dangerous.

Bias within Sexual Abuse article

The generalisations under the heading of Spousal sexual abuse are not supported by any public record or statistic. As a result, the statements do not conform with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy. Recommend deletion. DB 12:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem very biased. What made me first check the talk page to see if anything had been said about that, so.... deletion. Mathmo 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Incest

This page was just edited to include incest as a non-consensual, forced behaivor. While I agree that incest deserves to be classified as a form of sexual abuse, it is often consensual and so I would argue that it belongs in its own category\bullet point.

worth mentioning

The article should mention the conflict of legal age of consent with reality, that some who are within the legal age of consent may actually be more sexually and psychologically mature than some who are older than the age of consent, and as a result a person who is older than the age of consent may be sexually abused (a.k.a taken advantage of) by another adult, yet not raped because she/he was not emotionally mature enough to say no, yet the person who performed the abuse, who took advantage of another person's weakness for their own pleasure, will get away with it. Often the person is fully aware of the other party's immaturity and insecurity and that he/she is taking advantage of someone, and uses the same techniques that other abusers use on children. It creates an unfortunate situation where a person may be sexually abused yet feel powerless and guilty about it, and where the abuser gets away with it. It highlights the ineffecacy of America's sexual education programs in teaching young people to assert their sexual rights and also the flaws of age of consent laws which don't take into consideration a person's psychological age. There has been some discussion about it, in Sweden for example, but it was argued that it would be too difficult to prove when it happens, even more difficult than rape, to prove that they took advantage, and therefore is probably not realistic to prosecute them, or that there would be a risk of innocent people being prosecuted. Nevertheless it is still a problem that should be mentioned on here as it relates to abuse, because people are abused in this way yet often feel that they themselves have done something wrong, and should be encouraged to get counseling and realize that they were in fact abused. Akseli 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor sexual abuse section inaccurate

The "Minor sexual abuse" section was inaccurate in several ways. It is inaccurate to say that all sexual activities with minors is sexual abuse under all state's laws. The key is whether the minor in question is Under the age of consent. Since some states set the age of consent at 16, then it is possible for a minor of 16 or 17 in those states to legally consent to sexual activities with an adult. Another problem in the section was the claim that all sexually activities involving minors are illegal since masturbation, generally considered a sexual activity, is not so far as I know illegal under any state or federal laws. Also, I corrected the fact that the section failed to mention the distinction often made between adult/preteen sexual activities (child sexual abuse) and adult/teen sexual activities (statutory rape) or that their exists a marital exemption in some states to sexual abuse laws. --Cab88 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

marriage to minors

"Another exemption under sexual abuse laws states that exists in some states applies to adults legally married to minors. Thus, said adults can legally have sexual relations with their spouses without violating the law"

wouldn't they have already violated the law by marrying a minor? I don't understand this sentence.. --Froth 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends. At least in the state of New Mexico, marriage to a minor is permitted so long as parental consent is given. [1], as long as they are over the age of 16. [2] --Puellanivis 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Romeo Exclusion" and Marriage to a Minor

As a simple example of existence, in the state of New Mexico, marriage to a minor is permitted with parental consent [3] so long as the child is over the age of 16 [4], and no other violations of law would occur in the union (e.g. incest). By expectations of the privledge of marriage, the adult spouse would not be consider to be raping their minor spouse as long as the act was consentual.

In support of both the "Romeo Exclusion" being an exclusion to statutory rape, within the State of New Mexico,[5] there is at least a 4 year difference allowed such as to ensure that a consentual act of sex could occur spontaneously simply because one partner comes of legal age. --Puellanivis 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Abuse

Template:Abuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Joie de Vivre 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There is nothing wrong with having this in an encyclopedia, and in fact, it is a very real and disturbing fact of life. Just because someone may be offended, or have been victimized in relation to the topic at hand, that does not mean it should be removed. Mzanime 02:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incest is not necessarily abuse

The definition now reads:

Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another. The term incest is defined as sexual abuse between family members, and the euphemism "bad touch" is sometimes used to describe such abuse.(Renvoizé 1982)

But when you look at the definition of incest it does not include the use of force. Here in Germany we have a brother and sister who are parents of common children before the Supreme Court fighting for their right to consensual incest. How can we fix this paragraph? It isn't right the other way around, either: "Sexual abuse between family members is called incest" would be equally wrong since incest requires some sort of intercourse not just verbal molestation. Did Renvoizé coin the term "bad touch" for incest or for sexual abuse or their common denominator? Why is it a euphemism? Sounds pretty bad to me: Roman Czyborra 09:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference?

What's the difference between rape and molestation? TwistedRed (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article lists rape as only one of several kinds of molestation/sexual abuse. However, based upon the way this articles introduces the definition of sexual abuse, it would seem to only be describing rape. I think this may need to be worked out to make this article more consistant, either by expanding the original definition, or not including these other forms.

I believe the reason this confusion exists is because the introduction is largely drawn from the word 'molestation' which has a more specific use, whereas 'sexual abuse' is a more broad term. Molestation refers to bothering people with things they do not want ('molest' sounds a lot like a worse form of 'pester' to me, I dunno) often seen in terms of the person's reactions to someone's behaviours, whereas sexual abuse is a more neutral and objective sort of reference which refers to morality in terms of sexual conduct. You can see this specifically be removing the prefix and looking at abuse which is probably a very interpretable sort of word.

It is perhaps not the best to have had these articles merged. I believe it is possible to use the word 'molest' similar to the word accost whereas even though it generally is used in reference to sexual situations, it can have asexual uses too, and an article should address all of these meanings rather than only identify the most popular one. It is fine to identify the most popular one the most prominently, but not to exclusion.

For example, one of the three forms of sexual abuse mentioned is "The use of a position of trust for sexual purposes". However, this would not always fit within the context of 'forcing unwanted sexual acts' as the article describes. Society commonly refers to abusing positions as trust as sexual abuse and still frequently disdains it (especially in the case of men doing it) even when it is not forced, and when it is wanted. Tyciol (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture question

Where are all the pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.232.90 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue focus?

Currently the section regarding sexual abuse of children/minors is larger than the introductory paragraph explaining the true meaning of the term. Not only that, but it's supposed to be a mere summary of a different article being redirected to. I think either this needs to be cut down a little bit or else we need to build this article bigger so that it's not overpowred by this subsection. Tyciol (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of this article is a good idea; there is a lot of information that can be added and references on this topic are plentiful. The child sexual abuse section is appropriate in length for a section linked to a main article and should not be reduced. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

where are the pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.216.204 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Section

Would a section for occupational/academic sexual misconduct be appropriate? I am referring to for instance a college professor using their position to gain sexual favors from students, or a boss doing the same with employees.Legitimus (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Detuh

She was killed by a hitman named Jordan Mays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.19.61 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to the see also list.

• False allegation of child sexual abuse. Godtadet (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mild Sexual Abuse

Did you, as a child have parents who insisted you kiss/hug them, or that you kiss/hug them or your grandparents? And when you protested you were told that "It's no big deal." or "you're overeacting." Would this be a form of sexual abuse? This happened to me The snare (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

$Insertformulahere$Small Text

Positions of Power

The article added here as evidence to the sexual abuse by the Muslim clerics in Pakistan is baseless and quoting a Telegraph article which does not even exist and I think it was added just to increase the list or may be to include another major religion or even may be putting all religions under the same roof. Well, whatever the case is the reference is unauthentic itself and from a website explicitly targeting other faiths so how can it complement another article. There has never been cases reported in Pakistan, I have lived there for 21 years, of such nature and even if it would have happened ten t would have been an act of an individual not instigated by the power relinquished by the Islamic rules and regulations, it is not like it is practiced widely or even more than may be once a million years. I appeal here that Islam should be removed from this list immediately and if the case is still to be remained a better reference should be acquired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherangle (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What if there's consent?

Discussion of topic and not article content. See WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For example, incest is passed off as sexual abuse when on it on, it may or may not be consensual. As far as I'm concerned, sexual abuse is involuntary, and is no excuse for excessive morality. --68.7.110.80 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Many forms of sexual abuse contain what I term an "illusion of consent" or "false consent" wherein the victim complies with the actions, but there is some element behind it that compromises that person's ability to truely consent to what is happening to them. Such is the case with children (who do not understand what is happening and so cannot consent) and cases where the abuser is in a position of power over that person (where the person is essentially blackmailed into playing along). Incest is not always sexual abuse per se, in that it can occur between two adults, though statisticlly this almost always occurs between people who were separated for most of their childhood and never formed a familial bond, and/or in cases of people with several mental illness. In the context of this article, "incest" is primarily used to refer to the abuse of a child though.Legitimus (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC) That's the problem - the notion that children do not understand what is happening is an unfortunate blanket statement that ruins it for those with legitimate consent. However, I can concede that your "illusion of consent"/"false consent" can be applied to anybody who happens to be lacking in intelligence, regardless of age. Even I acknowledged that the context of the article's mention of incest as being with a child, but I can see how the abuse isn't always so, not that statistics would count those non-abuse accounts.--160.227.21.253 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Footnote #4 I'm not sure where do i post this. I was trying to find for a complaint button without success, thus I choose to write it here, hoping someone would take this into concern. The footnote # 4 on this article leads to a very disturbing website that promotes hatred againts Islam. Also, the website contains list of other blogs which are more extreme than the website itself. I have nothing againts the particular article that was meant to be inserted in the footnote though, but i do see alot of biased and hate comments posted below the article in that website,for example a comment suggesting an ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Links attached to the websites suggest these kind of page names :Burning the Koran for freedom, Creeping Sharia,Islamo nazism, Stop Islamisation of Europe, Why Islam is not a religion of peace, etc. I agree you can't stop people from spreading lies, and you can't stop them from reading lies too. But being an unbiased and neutral org Wikipedia is itself, it should not the least participate in linking people into hate promoting websites like these.Articles in Wikipedia should refer to reliable sources as it says in the guidelines for editors but what I see here, it's exposing the readers to a source which contains more personal opinions than generally accepted knowledge. I strongly suggest Christians and people from other religions to check on the rest of the footnotes too so they can voice out if they link to misleading websites as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryazadeh (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC) This is the right place to discuss article changes. However, Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring content for the reasons you describe. With that said, the source is a blog, which is generally frowned upon. If you can find another source, ideally a news article from a prominent paper, or even a blog with more notability, it would serve as a great replacement. And by the way, welcome to wikipedia! Jesstalk|edits 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Your concerns are absolutely correct--that site is a blog, which fail WP:RS in almost all cases. As such, I have removed the reference. Without a valid reference, I went ahead and removed Islam from the list, as this is such a serious allegation that we need at least one valid source. If anyone has a reliable source to support abuse in Islam, they may re-add with citation, of course. If you ever see a blog being used as a reliable source, please feel free to remove the source, and consider removing the information as well, especially if it is contentious. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian, I (very sloppily) undid most of your change. I left out the source being discussed here, since it really is out of place, but the other content seems appropriate. Sex abuse issues with Islam seem to be popping up all the time, and given that we have at least one QS stating as much, that should be left in with a CN tag until we can find a suitable replacement. The Jehova's Witnesses have a whole article devoted to sex abuse cases as well, which is already linked. That seems to be well sourced, so if you'd like to pull in something from that article to this one, that would be ok - though not technically necessary. Also, as a sidenote, you removed my edit in an edit conflict when replying. I undid that for you, but it's just something to look out for :) All the best, Jesstalk|edits 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (ec)Apologies, as I didn't mean to delete your comment--there must have been some sort of edit conflict (I was rushing to finish that before getting ready for work). While I think Mann_jess was wrong to reinsert Islam without a valid reference, I guess it can stay in for a while to see if someone can reference it. Of course, we are always allowed to delete any unsourced info, and the burden to find the source lies on those who want to include the info, so if anyone else wants to delete it now they are more than welcome to do so. (ec)Also, I must disagree with what you (Mann_jess) say about blogs. There is almost no such thing as a "blog with more notability." Per WP:SPS, there are really only 3 situations in which blogs are acceptable sources: when they are giving information about the subjection (in which case there are a whole bunch of special criteria such as a lack of undue self-promotion), when the "blog" isn't really a blog but actually an article in an reliable online newspaper that has editorial control that just uses the word "blog" to sound modern (often because they allow reader comments), or when the writer of the blog is a verified expert in the field (in which case you must be absolutely certain of the identity of the writer and must be able to prove the person meets the status of expert, and even then it would be a case-by-case basis). The only possible reason I could imagine to use a blog as a reference for this piece of information would be if there was a well known scholar (university professor, etc.) who was well-known as an expert on the practical aspects of one or more Islamic sects (i.e., not an Islamic religious scholar/Quranic expert, but an expert in the social and political nature of Islam). But in that case, since this is a general sentence, why not cite the reliable works for which the expert is known? (ec--responding to your 23:32 comment): I agree with the re-addition of the JW--I should have noticed the wikilink to the page on their abuses. I still strongly disagree with the re-addition of Islam, but that's because, in general, I think that information should be sourced before adding, not added in the hope/expectation a source will turn up later (i.e., I'm an immediatist). Furthermore, I think that when we're alleging something like sexual abuse, we need to be extra sure to have a strong, reliable source first. But, of course, others have different editing philosophies, so I figure it can stay in, at least for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian, as you said, there are cases where a blog is acceptable as a reliable source. There are, indeed, blogs which do have notability and a reputation for checking facts which we use elsewhere on the site. I agree that in this case a blog isn't ideal, and it should be a simple matter of google searching to find a worthy replacement from a newspaper or book. I would agree with you that the content should be removed until such a time, except that we had a QS in its place up until today. CN tags are there to be used for a reason, and I think this is a good one - it gives our editors a chance to find a suitable replacement without negatively impacting the article content in the interim. There's no need to rush these things, and if we don't have an editor step up and provide a source in a reasonable time, it should be removed. Jesstalk|edits 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Removal of victims advocacy link I removed the Canadian sexual abuse victim's advocacy link, because I believe that link is in clear violation of WP:EL. The nutshell summary of WP:EL reads, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Per this, the standard for inclusion on external links is quite high. Take a look at WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. This link definitely doesn't meet any of the WP:ELYES guidelines. There is no indication on that site that it is a particularly reliable source; rather, per it's About page, "SexAssault.ca is a Canadian victims advocacy website founded by Philanthropist Mark Zinck." There is no info provided to give any reason to believe that the site creators have any particular knowledge or expertise in the field, or that the information is in any way reliable. As such, I don't believe it is appropriate to include that link. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Picture of sexually abused child I just joined Wikipedia so I don't have the authority to make changes to this topic yet, but perhaps I can persuade someone else to? I think the picture of the sexually abused child should be removed because: 1. The child has not provided permission for his/her picture to be used on Wikipedia. 2. The picture is exploitative of the child and should have never been taken or published in the first place. Just because the child is anonymous and the individual is likely no longer alive today doesn't mean it's ok to use his/her photo. Imagine if we posted a picture of a child who was sexually abused last year? Laws would prevent this. 3. The picture serves absolutely no purpose in enhancing the information about the topic except to affect the reader's emotions. Surely we can feel emotional about the horrors of child sexual abuse without looking at a photo. 4. The picture also serves to perpetuate harmful stereotypes that "this is what an abused child looks like"- listless and battered. The face of child sexual abuse is not obvious and it is diverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy3482 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) You are absolutely right and I have removed the picture. I had not looked at this article in several years and had I noticed it before I would have removed it sooner. I don't know what the back story is with that photo but some tosser kept trying to insert it into other articles too.Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Or not. Seems some other user accused me of censorship, though had he read the talk page he would see it was nothing of the sort. Well, whoever has a serious argument in favor of keeping the image, please post.Legitimus (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure how I feel about the picture being included. But I can understand the "this is what an abused child looks like - listless and battered" opposition. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Do you know where this picture is from? I am not even clear what I am looking at other than a child who looks physically ill. My concern is that someone just took a random photo of a sick child and added a description, which is all kinds of wrong. But also, this is a subject that should never have a face assigned to it. It doesn't illustrate anything about the subject. None of my textbooks contain any photos about sexual abuse other than pictures of perpetrators, or clean smiling family photos of well-known victims.Legitimus (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Through sheer exposure, I have long ago stopped having much emotional reaction to such cases at all. (Imagine the difference between a regular person seeing a car accident victim versus a surgeon who long ago developed the "skin" needed to remain objective and focused on treatment. I still don't believe that the photo belongs, however, simply because the photo does not reasonably depict the actual issue. The great, great majority of victims are visually indistingishable from children who are not sexually abused. What is visible is the (non-sexual) violence, such as this victim shows. I have therefore re-removed the pic.— James Cantor (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) No, Legitimus, I don't know where the picture is from. And I understand your concern about someone having been deceptive with the description. I agree with you and James on why the picture should be excluded. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Also, I think the child in that photo is deceased. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Is this really needed? "Bad Touch" redirects here. For the song, see The Bad Touch.- I've heard young children use that terminology. I've heard Adults use that terminology to young children.It just seems rather mocking to have it here. Is there an actual need for it? I just have the mental picture of a bloodhound gang fan having a herp derp moment upon finding this page as opposed to the opposite.24.115.19.178 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC) So is the article saying all parents are sexual abusers? It certainly implies to state that. Bulletpoint lacks sufficient detail. "Saying sexually suggestive statements towards a child (child molestation)." I'm sorry is this saying that saying sexually suggestive statements to , towards, or at a child is Child molestation? I mean if so wouldn't the Character that Julia Roberts plays in the Stepmom be committing Child molestation while talking to her future stepdaughter. Roberts tells her future stepdaughter to insult a boy at school who previously humiliated her, telling him that she doesn't waste her time with "losers who don't even know what snowblowing is." That's just a rather tame and innocent example. further more and honestly as written it seems more like sexual harassment tan anything else as it is written.24.115.19.178 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Edit request on 1 June 2012 "ISLAM (CITATION NEEDED)" SHOULD BE DELETED THERE IS NO PROOF OF THIS. Ismi2u (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)  Not done there is not currently a cite, this is true, but cases are very easy to find. I'm sure someone will add a cite eventually. (If this were a person I would delete it, but as a religion it's not as if it can be "slandered", and Islam is all grown up now with over a billion followers, it's a big boy and can look after itself) Egg Centric 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)  Done Actually, it's been marked as needing a citation since January 2011. That's plenty of time for someone to have added it, and WP:V clearly says that information which has been challenged should be removed at some point. Every single other religion either has a citation or is a link to a specific page about sex scandal in the church. We can't keep just one religion there uncited indefinitely under the presumption that it will some day be verified. Of course, anyone who wishes to verify it and re-add it is more than welcome to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Small issue with child sexual abuse section I have a small issue with the statement that "child sexual abuse also occurs when an adult indecently exposes their genitalia to a child,...". Because the definition indecent exposure can cover just about any form of public nudity in some places, this statement is way too broad. In the U.S. and in many other countries it is not legally child sexual abuse to expose your genitals to a child in the context of say nudist activities, a nude protest march, mom or dad being nude around their kids in the privacy of their own home, etc. Now if you intentionally expose yourself for the specific purpose show your genitals to a child then that can considered sexual abuse but merely being nude around a child is not legally sexual abuse (please correct me if anyone aware of any state cases that contradict that statement). I'm not aware of any credible expert on the issue of child sexual abuse who argues that child being exposed to the genitals of an adult is automatically sexual abuse in and of itself. yes, some people do argue that taking a child to nudist resort or beach or a parent being naked around their child is sexual abuse in and of itself but they represent a minority. I'm not sure how best to correct this but I do feel it should be reworded to be clear that merely being nude around a child is not sexual abuse in and of itself. --Cab88 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with the principle of what you are saying. It's the goal of the "exposer" and not the nudity per se that makes it abusive or not. I think it just needs to be rephrased in a way that makes this more clear.Legitimus (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I found a much better way of phrasing it in the Child sexual abuse article which I copied over to this the CSA section in this article. It now properly differentiates between abusive exposure of the genitals to a child (i.e. for sexual gratification vs non-abusive (i.e. nudism, familial nakedness, accidental exposure). --Cab88 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Boy Scouts of America There is a dispute[6] on Boy Scouts of America about the inclusion of material about sexual abuse. I'm hoping the editors here would be familiar with the subject and be able to help us settle the dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC) The dispute is settled, and you lost. Votestacking won't work. Belchfire-TALK 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Since I'm closely following WP:CANVAS, I made my original remarks as neutral as possible. Unfortunately, Belchfire and Arthur Rubin don't want more editors to see what's going on, so they're doing their best to discourage you from looking at the article and deciding for yourselves. I suggest that you don't let them control you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You were the one who wanted to hide comments. If Belchfire is incorrect, it reflects on him, rather than on you. However, my impression is not that the matter was undecided there, but that consensus was against you. Bringing in other opinions might find consensus for a different option, but almost certainly not the one you would prefer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Nowhere in WP:CONSENSUS does it say that what the editors paying attention to an article on a given day decide is binding upon Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, the more distinct editors involved, the more meaningful a consensus. That's why there are various mechanisms for bringing in more editors, the most simple of which is the notice I posted above. Belchfire's goal was to preserve a fake consensus formed out of a bloc of conservatives acting together in violation of Wikipedia policy. As a result, I hatted his attempt to derail the editing process with a clear label to inform people of what they would see inside. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC) See WP:VOTESTACK, a sub-section of WP:CANVAS: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. You have several options available to you for attracting neutral editors to participate in a discussion, but you didn't elect to use them. Instead, you have selected this Talk page to post a plea for help because you perceive that editors found here are likely to support your losing argument. This is an attempt to craft a specific outcome. It's votestacking. In addition, because the notice you posted here is in no way related to the article "Sexual abuse", the notice is disruptive, and should probably be removed on those grounds. I will leave your self-serving misinterpretation of WP:CONSENSUS for another time, being satisfied for now to merely observe the humor in that you believe a consensus to be binding when it agrees with you, and meaningless when it does not. Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You're both absurdly violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Still is asking for help from editors of a potentially related article, and started out with an apparently neutral request. However, he falsely claims there was not a previous consensus, and he hid Belchfire's efforts to point that out. Belchfire was falsely accusing him of canvassing, but correctly accusing him of an WP:OTHERPARENT violation. If there is a relationship between this article and the Boy Scouts article, Still's first comment here was reasonable. His followup comments were not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC) If you read WP:OTHERPARENT, you'll find that it specifically applies to noticeboards and administrators. You really have to read policy, not just the titles of links. Belchfire was wrong on both of these issues, and wrong to try to disrupt my neutral call for more editors. If you read the rest of WP:CONSENSUS, you'll find that it talks about what's happening here and fully supports my actions: Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive editing. It also says, in as many words: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. This directly refutes your claims about the value of a previous consensus. Do me a favor; don't pretend to be some expert on policy. You keep making obvious mistakes and saying things that aren't true. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC) While I respect Arthur's knowledge of policy, I'm not convinced he got it right this time. Your actions bring to mind a question: why not post a RfC? Belchfire-TALK 18:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC) If you want to escalate to an RfC, you're welcome to. I prefer to start small. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC) That's rich. RfC is hardly "escalation", but it is neutral, and that's why it doesn't interest you. And you've had no difficulty "escalating" in the past, have you? The problem is that you know full well you are 0-3 in "escalations" lately, so now you're looking to put your thumb on the scale. If RfC doesn't appeal to you, why not go to DRN? And again I remind, this Talk page is not intended for this purpose. Belchfire-TALK 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It doesn't seem that you understand what escalation is. Regardless, an RfC would be fine, since it's bringing in more editors. We could try DRN, but it's basically worthless. Unless we luck out and get one of the few volunteers who goes beyond the limits of the process, they'll just count heads and pretend that a consensus is a vote. Fortunately, a DRN is not binding, so I would not be bound by it. This talk page is intended to discuss the sexual abuse article and to bring up peripheral matters, such as what to do about sexual abuse content in other articles, with Boy Scouts of America being a good example. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) No, in fact, it is not. This page exists for exactly one purpose: discussing improvements to the Sexual abuse article. Any discussions of other pages must go somewhere else. Period. It was acceptable to notify this page of the other discussion (as Still... pointed out, maybe someone here has expertise that would be valuable there), but that is all. I expect that this conversation is now done. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Edit request on 11 September 2012 I think that people need to know facts about stuff they don't feel comfortable enough to talk about. That's why people come to this website to add stuff they know so other people can learn knew things. Please change this page so it is more discriptive Surferchick022 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) You make a valid point and a valiant plea. Unfortunately the nature of an edit request requires that you say something more direct as in change A (showing the current wording) to B ( showing the proposed new wording) I hope you'll join our editing community and soon be making these edits yourself. I posted some information on your talk page that may be helpful as you begin. Good luck. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Edit request for hatnote Can someone add a hat note to indicate that Bad Touch redicts here, for the song see The Bad Touch? Thanks. I forgot my password. 72.95.180.63 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Done I just fixed the redirect. — Bility (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Edit request on 24 July 2013  Not done One reference from Andrea Dworkin isn't going to cut it for adding something like that to the lede paragraph. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)