Child sexual abuse: the sources of anxiety making and the negative effects

ABSTRACT: Christian moral belief about child sexuality and feminist theory and practice are considered as the primary causes for the anxiety about, and exaggeration of, child sexual abuse. The negative effects of this anxiety making are discussed in relation to research and literature, the negative influences this has had on professional performance, and the subsequent deleterious consequences upon institutions, families and children. It is proposed that the manufactured moral alarm about child sexual abuse has done more harm than good. [...]

Significant correlations have long been found to exist with regards to Christian fundamentalism and child sexual abuse (Gebhard et al, 1965; Justice and Justice, 1979; Frude, 1982). More recently, Holderread Heggen (1993) reports that, after alcohol/drug addiction, the second best predictor for child sexual abuse appears to be that the parents belong to a conservative Christian religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (A variable that seems often ignored by other studies). The present Christian preoccupation with child sexual abuse appears a continuation of its negative obsession with sexuality rather than a genuine concern about child protection per se. It seems this sexual moral Christian ethic which has caused us to focus on the sexuality in the abuse of children rather than on the more frequently occurring neglect and physical and emotional abuses. [...]

For feminists, and sympathizing professionals, this supported the belief that even if a child had seemed to consent it could still be considered abuse and the child could therefore always be considered a victim. It seemed a significant development in the feminist explanation of child sexual abuse akin to the Christian absolutism about childhood sexual innocence. The term 'no excuses' was soon adopted. [...]

This anti-sex persuasion is clearly evident in the feminist-initiated and professionally supported prevention programs for children designed to "empower" them. It is also evident in efforts to brand children, as young as four, as "offenders" or "perpetrators" when engaging in sexual activities amongst themselves (for instance, see Johnson, 1988; 1989; 1998). The feminist notions of power and consent were used as justifications for this invasion of the sexual privacy of children and the practice continues today under the name of "problem sexual behaviors". [...]

Erroneous conclusions seemed often based on the manipulation and broadening of definitions of child sexual abuse. These appeared designed to inflate prevalence, exaggerate its negative effects, and underscore its perceived seriousness (O'Hagan, 1989; Jenkins, 1992; Cooper, 1993; Browne and Lynch, 1995; Haugaard, 2000). We do not see such manipulation occurring in research to do with physical or emotional abuse or neglect of children. Positive or neutral responses to adult/child sexual interactions in research seem often to have been deliberately ignored or re-interpreted as negative. This to suit preconceived notions of Christian sexual morality or feminist perceptions (Besherov, 1985a; 1985b; Schetky, 1986; Okami, 1990; 1991; 1992; Hindmarch, 1991). Particular methodological issues that prevailed refer to biased selection of samples, failure to employ control groups, lack of differentiation between children and adolescents, and the reluctance to consider cultural or confounding variables when reporting on negative effects. (Wyatt and Peters, 1986; Finkelhor et al, 1988; Friedrich, 1990; 1993; Haugaard, 2000; Haugaard and Emery, 1989; Higgens and McCabe, 1994; Jumper, 1995; deYoung,1999; Goldman and Padayachi, 2000; Denov, 2003). The selective acceptance of quite dubious prevalence findings and the erroneous assumption that prevalence equates with harm led to misleading judgments. As did unacceptable generalizations of clinical studies that reported expected traumatic effects but conveniently ignored iatrogenic consequences. [...] Such distorted research findings have often been used to ensure that the topic remains on the social and political agenda and convince politicians and bureaucrats to create favorable policies and increase funding (Dubowitz, 1994; Jenkins, 1992; 1998; Kenny, 1999; deYoung, 1999; Partington, 2002). [...]

Once considered normative and harmless, more overt child sexual behaviors are now being pathologized. One is reminded of the Ford and Beach (1951) research of many cultures illustrating that such child sexual activities are common. They are not necessarily taught by adults, and have, like many other activities engaged in by children amongst themselves, few demonstrated ill effects. Until, that is, they are deemed to be harmful by morally preoccupied professionals (Okami, 1992; Kilpatrick, 1992; Levine 1998; 2002). [...] The popular dramatic portrayal of child "problematic sexual behaviors" may be queried in relation to whether such efforts are based on a genuine interest in the protection and sexual welfare of children. It could be argued that the motivating source resides in promoting the moral conservative ideation of child sexuality. It rather seems that Gochros' reminder in 1982 about children and adolescents being the most sexually oppressed by professionals remains with us. [...]

Conclusion

Christian belief about child sexuality and feminist ideations have more in common than is generally thought. Together they have negatively influenced the perception of child sexual abuse.

With the active collaboration of professionals and lay persons, undue alarm was created about the sexual morality of children being in great danger. This led to the exaggeration of child sexual abuse at the expense of other more frequently occurring, and also under-reported, other abuses of children. It seemed to be the sexual moral nature of the abuse that attracted these protagonists, rather than a genuine concern about child protection. This surreptitious moral concern spilled over into other areas of child sexuality (such as "problematic sexual behaviors" and "child sexualization"). As outlined, the moral and ideological thrust of the child sexual abuse exaggeration has come at considerable cost, particularly to families and children. It is only balanced and rational research, and sober and objective professional analysis, that may turn the tide in the decades to come.

source: Article 'Child Sexual Abuse: The Sources of Anxiety Making and the Negative Effects' by Arnold Veraa (PhD) (former social worker and psychologist in child protective services, Melbourne); www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume18/j18_4.htm; IPT Journal, Volume 18; 2009