A Simplified Review Of Finkelhor's "The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse"

Who?

David Finkelhor is a child sexual abuse preventionist and sociologist. Since 1977, he has contributed research into the psychology of how child sexual abuse happens and how it can be prevented. If you wish to read more about this pillar of abuse prevention, please do so. As this is a method of simplifying his study, The Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse (2012), I will not focus as much on the details. It is a fairly short read at 19 pages, but the average person will find it dry and boring even with a dictionary handy.

Reductions In Incidents Of Child Sexual Abuse (p. 16-17)

One surprising fact is that sexual violence against children has been on a downward trend since the 1990's, though the reason for this decline is unclear. The evidence for this decline comes both from self-report surveys and crime data trends. This downward trend was also associated with several other areas, such as reductions in general crime, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, and drug abuse. While one review mentions some possible reasons for these declines, there is no causal evidence that connects a solid reason for the downward trend in incidents of child sexual abuse.

His Review Of Current Strategies, By Topic

I said this was simplified, right? Well, here is a list for you, then, with the topics he covers and what he concludes about each. If you wish to know more about a particular topic, you can find the page number at the beginning of each topic. I am breaking down his reviews by broad category.

Criminal Justice Strategies

1. Sex Offender Registration (p. 5-6)
1. Mixed, but not promising: There has been inadequate research into sex offender registration policies, and many studies also include community notification, which is a separate topic. Crime has been in decline since 1990 or so, and it is unclear if the studies that have been done are finding drops in crimes because of registration, or because of the downward crime trend. Possibility for collateral consequences like stigma on offenders, negative effects, and limited effectiveness, but also a possibility for public confidence in authorities and a sense of safety (even if false).
2. Sex Offender Notifications (p. 6)
1. Limited studies and negative effects: You can always tell that more research is badly needed when a high-level researcher opens his remarks with saying, "No high-quality studies exist, and the correlational studies have mixed results." He observes that community notifications of sex offenders seems based on the myth of stranger danger, and that notifications are not favored by law enforcement and can significantly interfere with an offender's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
3. Background Checks (p. 6-7)
1. False sense of risk: Surprisingly, Dr. Finkelhor observes that not only have there been limited research into the benefits and costs of background checks, but that doing so would be pointless because of how mainstream they are. He states that research is "badly needed" regardless because the true risk that individuals with backgrounds pose is unclear, and may be weeding out perfectly competent workers or employees who pose little to no risk.
4. Sex Offender Residency Restrictions (p. 7)
1. Note: These are restrictions that prevent sex offenders from living near day cares, schools, and other places frequented by children. Several studies done into their effectiveness (very limited since 2012) show little to no effect. One study done in 2007 in Minnesota found that not one of the 224 re-offenses studied would have been deterred by such policies. There appears to be studies that Finkelhor was not aware of when writing this summary.
2. Supremely stupid: Not only have residency restrictions been enacted with no research into their effectiveness, the research that has been done on how offenses happen and the effect these policies have in theory shows that they are not worth adopting if the goal is to protect children. He points out that, "law enforcement and sex offender management authorities do not have the credibility or evidence base to temper or thwart misguided populist legislation on sex offender policy."
5. Civil Commitment and Lengthening Sentences (p. 7-8)
1. No evidence, does not reduce risk: While many different policies have lengthened the sentences of sex offenders and many states have formed procedures to essentially incarcerate sex offenders past their criminal sentence. The basis for these policies is a deterrent effect, and reducing those capable of committing new offenses, both of which have not been studied. It is noted that sentence length appears to have no relationship with the risk of reoffending, and that the evidence supporting these policies is extremely limited and unclear.
6. Increasing Detection and Arrest (p. 8-9)
1. Note: This is defined as when detection and arrests are increased on the law enforcement side of things, not to be confused with attempts to get victims to report abuse. The focus here is on more staff to detect and investigate abuse for criminal arrests and prosecutions, in the hope of deterring potential offenders and controlling existing offenders through the effects of being arrested.
2. Mixed: He notes that no studies have tested for the presence of a deterrent effect on sexual offending against children, but that other studies do support deterrents for domestic violence, drunken driving, and robberies. Instead of deterring potential abusers, increased detection and arrests seem instead to deter caught abusers from acting again. It is noted that general research not specific to sexual abuse, "tends to confirm that offenders are deterred more by an increase of getting caught than and increase in the severity of the likely punishment." 
7. Mental Health Treatment (p. 9-10)
1. Mostly positive: While many abusers lack access to adequate treatment, the research shows that treatment (particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy) reduces sexual re-offenses by up to 37%, which is significant because the likelihood of sexual re-offenses are already low. Because this research appears non-experimental in terms of its methodology, some experts are reserved in endorsing mental health treatment for adults and more research into this area is needed. While the strength of the research for adults is convincing, the research around juvenile offenders is even more so because it does use experimental designs.
8. Community Reintegration and Supervision (p. 10)
1. Promising, but needs research: Of note is Circles of Support and Accountability, an innovative program originating in Canada which provides a support system for offenders. The idea here is to focus on successfully reintegrating the offender through social support and employment opportunities. While Circles is noted to reduce reoffending by 70%, more research is needed. 

Wrapping Up Criminal Justice

Dr. Finkelhor notes that tremendous energy has gone into criminal justice policies, and that the biggest weakness of this approach is that most molestations are not perpetrated by those with a record of sex crimes. In other words, "Even strategies that are 100 percent effective in eliminating recidivism among known offenders would reduce new victimizations only a little." 

He does recommend four areas to improve upon: Detecting offenders not yet known to law enforcement, focus only on the high-risk offenders, develop better risk-assessment tools, and determine low-intensity strategies for youth, family, and other low-risk offenders. 

Educational Programs (p. 11-14)

Here, Dr. Finkelhor overviews programs that teach children boundaries, dangerous situations and when to get help, safe/unsafe touch, along with the underlying message that victims are not to blame. These programs have drawn criticism: They may be too difficult for children to grasp, they may impede a child's trust in adults, and (as I have said before in other terms), "children cannot be reasonably expected to foil... adults bent on molesting them and... it is morally misguided and perhaps psychologically harmful to place the responsibility of preventing abuse on the shoulders of children."

Research shows that these programs can improve child-parent communication and that children do indeed learn the concepts being taught, particularly at younger ages. Research also shows very limited unintended consequences, and report positive outcomes like more positive self-esteem. Such educational programs have also been shown to reduce risk factors for victimization (in some studies but not others) and can increase bystander intervention. Much to my own surprise, there appears to be no basis for concerns that educational programs have negative consequences on children who experience these programs and are then abused: Instead, research supports the idea that such programs increase victim disclosure and reduce self-blame. Rather than causing more trauma to a victim, prevention programs seem to ease their burden.

Dr. Finkelhor recommends expanding these programs to include dating violence, statutory crimes, and new sexual crimes that are made possible by the internet.

Community Prevention of Offending (p. 14-15)

Here. Dr. Finkelhor overviews small-scale efforts to educate a small community to identify potential abusers with mental health help and an awareness that sexual behavior with children is wrong. Confidential phone numbers are provided in this approach. While there is limited evidence that these practices realistically prevent abuse, there is evidence that potential abusers come forward for help. At the very least, those with concerns about their behavior or thoughts are coming forward for help. It is mentioned that the current environment can reduce the ability of these programs to truly offer confidential help, and that alone can be a significant hindrance to these approaches as policies.

Separately, another approach is bystander intervention to detect and intervene when abusive situations are actually or potentially happening. There is more evidence supporting bystander intervention, and the research in that area is more developed. This research shows that bystander intervention can change community attitudes, reduce bullying among children, and has the potential to reduce peer abuse or dating violence.

Harm Mitigation (p. 15-16)

Harm mitigation is the use of counseling and family intervention to reduce the effects of abuse on victims, and the use of child advocacy centers to reduce the impacts of disclosure on victims through a variety of means. He specifically mentions that not all victims suffer the same level of harm or symptoms from sexual abuse, and he also mentions that there must be sensitivity in discovering the needs of a child victim and forming the most appropriate intervention. He points out that trauma-focused therapy is excellent for victim, and that child advocacy centers can point to or offer this particular therapy.

While there are other options mentioned, they are essentially miscellaneous tactics that do not have much attention in research. These options can be found on page 16.

Conclusion And Five Promising Areas For Study (p. 17-19)

Dr. Finkelhor concludes by indicating that there is no strong evidence pointing to a single strategy in preventing child sexual abuse, but proposes looking into several areas for further study and research:

1. School-based child-focused educational programs
2. Evidence-based policy and therapeutic practices around criminal justice
3. Making cognitive-behavioral therapies standard and widely available

He closes his remarks by expressing optimism that with further research, we can make greater and more numerous accomplishments in reducing child sexual abuse. 

Supreme Court Decides Sex Offender Social Media Use Is Free Speech: Why This Matters

Say What?

A sex offender posted a win in defeating a parking ticket, on Facebook where North Carolina forbids sex offenders from being on social media. He was arrested, and his case went all the way to SCOTUS. The best analysis I have seen for this so far is here.

In short, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of the sex offender, ruling that his access to social media constitutes free speech and cannot be restricted. While I am still working through the decision in its entirety, you can read the complete decision and an outline of the case.

What Does This Mean?

This ruling means, to quote the decision, "...the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of modern society and culture." The decision was not limited to social media, and the decision essentially holds for the entire internet, insofar as it is used for free speech. While I am no legal expert, this ruling may well set the stage for a number of internet and technology-related issues that come before judges.

Why Is This Related To Primary Prevention?

The argument of North Carolina was, in part, that restricting sex offenders from social media sites was a virtual extension of banning them from schools, parks, daycares, and other places children gather. They claimed that banning sex offenders from such places, and from certain internet sites, was in the interest of protecting the community.

Logically, their argument falls short, because sexual offenders do not pose the most significant risk to children: Those new to the criminal justice system who are trusted in the community are. The SCOTUS did not buy the legal argument of North Carolina because, in part,

"By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard."

Social Media Helps Reintegration

Another essential part of why they ruled against North Carolina, that was quoted in many articles on the subject, was,

"It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

This issue is closely related to primary prevention, because it allows sex offenders the right to use social media and have a bigger voice in politics, as well as use the internet to reform themselves (which, by the way, includes yours truly).

Concerns About Restrictions On Those Having Served Their Sentence

One concern outlined in the court's decision, and was also shared in one of the news articles discussing the decision, was that the law is imposing restrictions on convicts and ex-convicts after the completion of their sentence. This concern was briefly mentioned in the court's decision:

"Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court."

This suggests that the court may take up the issue again in the future, and a growing number of civil rights advocates are have been concerned about similar issues. I posit that scaling back these restrictions may well reduce recidivism, and can have collateral consequences well beyond what their intent was.

One Item Of Concern...

I do have one item of concern regarding the court's decision: Their claim that sex offenders pose a serious risk for recidivism, and that the internet can all too easily be used by a sex offender to commit a new sexual crime against a child. The court cites a wide range of examples in airing this concern that, frankly, would give many would-be offenders ideas on how to commit such a crime and get away with it.

I am concerned by this, because not only does the concern of sex offenders committing new sex crimes have no basis in research, the ruling is such that their statement that runs contrary to said research may be cited in future decisions regarding the issue. I worry about broadly announcing the fact that social media can be used to stalk, sexually exploit, and sexually abuse children in specific ways, and this ruling appears to do just that. We need to avoid giving people ideas.

Moore Center Sex Abuse Symposium: Part Five: "Untouchable" Panel Discussion and Founder Comments

In case you missed the other parts for this series, please see part one, two, three, or four.

As a refresher...

So, What Is This Symposium?

The Moore Center Symposium is a "meeting of the minds" on the prevention of child sexual abuse. It  offers professionals (and advocates) an opportunity to learn more about the issue of child sexual abuse and how it can be prevented. The Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse is a subset of Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health, which is a major educational institution in Maryland that is well-known for its work in the public health sector (as its name should indicate). The Moore Center is currently being directed by Dr. Elizabeth Letourneau, who used to be the president of The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), and is a researcher that studies a myriad of topics within the realm of sexual abuse prevention. I am watching these admittedly dry and boring speeches to pull the essential parts out and communicate them to you. If you want to view them yourself, by all means, just be forewarned that they are dry and can be triggering. 

Beginning Introductions

The symposium starts with an introduction by Johns Hopkins' President, Ronald Daniels, regarding some of the reasons for the symposium and the keynote speaker at the symposium, Patrick McCarthy, who is the president and CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, an organization that focuses on improving the lives of children in a variety of ways.  Other speakers at the symposium were Dr. Elizabeth Letourneau, Dr. Bruce Taylor (an expert in criminology), and Jill Levenson (expert in sociology and social work), followed by a showing of the film Untouchable, which I have talked about on this blog before. Following the film, there is a panel discussion about the film and closing remarks by Stephen and Julia Moore, the founding donors of the Moore Center.

Untouchable Panel Discussion (Dr. Fred Berlin, Dr. Ryan Shields, Dr. Jill Levenson, Director David Feige)

The first few minutes of the video are introductions of the moderator, Fred Berlin, and the panelists. In short, David Feige (pronounced FAI-GUH) being the exception, all involved are extremely smart and extremely relied on for their expertise in this area, both in the media, and with numerous other organizations, including the White House.

Note: If you have not yet seen Untouchable, this may not make much sense. So go see it! Find a non-profit that is hosting it, see it at a film festival, or host a screening. You can also request a personal screening at that link as well.

Questions from Moderator:

1. Moderator Comment: Invitation to make whatever comments they wish/opening comments
1. Dr. Shields (2nd time seeing film): No lack of strong opinions, varying perspectives harnessing energy to react to sexual abuse... what if we harnessed the energy seen in the film and directed it towards prevention? Still in a reactive frame, however.
2. Dr. Levenson (6th time seeing film): Film does not hit you over the head, it lets you come to your own conclusions. Powerful to see screening with homeless registrants. 
3. Director Feige : Deeply saddened by irrelevance of limitations of film ("just a movie") where people are hungry and need basic things like a place to pee, place to shower, etc. Need to change policy in a way that is evidence-based and responsive to reality... and find port-a-potties for homeless sex offenders. Film was designed to start a conversation and stay balanced so that the film can appeal to everyone: Victims, registrants, families of registrants, policymakers, etc. Value in creating solutions to the problem. 
2. Moderator comment: Not just a movie, about life, perceptions, caring about human beings we need to know about, disagrees with Director Feige in saying it was just a movie.
1. Director Feige: Most audiences do not turn on Ron Book until much later in the film, cites screening at MSPIFF. People are far more empathetic towards Ron and Lauren Book until much deeper in the film. 
2. Dr. Levenson: Film forces us to look at big picture and ripple effects, you cannot solve problem of sex crimes by creating more trauma on sex offenders and family/friends of sex offenders. Film drills home that having a home is fundamental, and not having one impacts the stability of every other area of life. 
3. Dr. Shields: Imagine a world where registration policies were effective and inexpensive... the fatal flaw is that we are waiting for harm to occur and then react to it. Unacceptable policy position, because it does not effectively reduce child sexual abuse. Lots of energy towards ineffective policy.
3. Moderator Question: How do we go beyond preaching to the choir? Challenge of multiple perceptions/perspectives, how do we reach people at a personal level? How do we get public perceptions to change?
1. Director Feige: Central conundrum, taking on THE least popular, THE most difficult, THE most marginalized subject... and go beyond just looking at a young female sex offender in an unfortunate situation. People empathize with faces, stories, so storytelling is important. Hoping that film is a way to open people up and wrestle with the subject in a way that is ultimately grounded in science and fact. Open invitation to show the film to legislators, invitation to non-profits for screenings (has real human being whose only job is to set up non-profit screenings). Tells story of how Ron Book hated the comic at the initial screening, Ron Book says that the comic makes fun of the issue.
4. Moderator Question: Are there things you wish you could have put in the film that you struggled with including/not including in the film? Are there things that the panel would have wanted to see in the film?
1. Director Feige: Civil commitment, overview of what civil commitment of sex offenders and the case in Minnesota. Also penile plethysmograph and overview a few deleted scenes and lots of compelling stories from other people. Lots of issues, lots of characters that were all compelling, but he had to pick an issue to keep the film within reason.
2. Dr. Levenson: She states she is sure she will think of them when she is driving home.
3. Dr. Shields: When the director asks of Ron Book, "Which of these laws would have protected your daughter?" Was there additional pushback?
4. Director Feige: Ron likes to talk, very successful at convincing people of his point of view, very smart, very cagey. He liked the question. Ron Book stated multiple times an intent to murder Waldina, the abuser of Lauren Book. 
5. Dr. Levenson: Lots of guilt and pain for Ron Book, and the only way to deal with that is by doing what she is doing with legislation. 
6. Director Feige: Talked about trying for two years to get Patty Wetterling to interview for the film, constantly refused... film was slated for the Tribeca Film Festival, and the producer asked director Feige to try again, calls, hands Mr. Feige the phone... and she said yes. Including Patty Wetterling adds a great aspect to the film, captures Ron Book being trapped in his anger and drive to push changes much better.
5. Question from audience: Please share thoughts on 1) if a child molester lived next door to you, and 2) if your child got molested and the offender got to live and work near children?
1. Director Feige: You can have an emotional reaction, but that is separate from creating policy. We do not just let one lone individual express their anger in policy. Knowing what he knows now, he would probably not be angry, but it is crucial to understand that our society needs to aspire to be greater than its base instincts to do better collectively than we do as individuals. Anyone would be angry enough to kill the abuser. Personally, knowing what he knows now, director Feige would not be worried, but without that knowledge there is still the distinction between policy reaction and personal reaction. 
2. Moderator comment: False question, there are already those who have molested living in our communities and of course everyone wants to protect children. The issue is how to make that protection happen.
3. Dr. Levenson: People have to live somewhere and those with prior sex crimes are already living around us. Her daughter was victimized as a young adult, and everyone has faced that to some degree. Children just want the abuse to stop, and to feel safe and normal. Adults who are victimized want an acknowledgment of accountability and harmfulness. Trying to view things with compassion and empathy can help figure out healing without vengeance.
6. Moderator comment: Do we as adults sometimes not allow children to really express what they're actually feeling when they are abused?
1. Director Feige: Super-draconian laws inhibit reporting because there is no opportunity to solve issue of an abuser without totally breaking up the family unity and community.
2. Dr. Levenson: The pain and damage done to children and families by policies like the requirement of parents to give up their parental rights if they are convicted of a sex offense adds a different aspect/dimension to reporting. 
7. Moderator comment: Comment about prevention, people are coming forward out of worry that they or a loved one is accessing sexual abuse imagery, but there are new mandatory reporting laws to require these people to be reported to police, and these mandatory reporting laws can depress reporting.
1. Dr. Shields: Help Wanted project in line with the idea of when we provide help: When someone has been hurt, or before that point? We need to confront this question, and the Help Wanted project is aimed at getting help to adolescents with pedophilia before anything happens. 
2. Dr. Levenson: New mandatory reporting laws regarding sexual abuse imagery, but these laws damage the therapeutic relationship and hurts a caregiver's ability to provide confidentiality and trust in their office. Another area is helping counselors respond to those with sex abuse imagery concerns help these clients effectively without freaking out, without overreacting, and without shaming... that being able to help these people is what prevention is about.
8. Audience question: What can everyday people do to try to do more about prevention? 
1. Dr. Levenson: Take any opportunity you can to be a role model in the life of a child, whenever we come across children, like a child being berated by a parent at the store, to treat them with kindness so that they feel special, important, and worthy so they feel adults can be trusted. Every instance helps the child understand the world, which builds empathy and helps them avoid becoming people who harm others. 
2. Director Feige: Be a champion of truth. Be courageous in dispelling myths that are so pervasive and commonplace. Be an advocate for truth, be an advocate for science, and be an advocate for challenging myths.

Founder Comments

Those interested in hearing the Moore couple talk about their story, and the founding of the Moore Center, should absolutely watch this couple talk for themselves. It is 17 minutes, and is well worth your time. I am not going to butcher their presentation by summarizing it.

A Message About Prevention For Sexual Abuse/Assault Survivors

Difficult Subject

  

This subject is difficult for me, because I was sexually abused by three separate people growing up: A caregiver, a local teenager, and my mother were the culprits. While that is not my entire story, and as you well know, each of our stories is different, it has served as part of the backbone for why I advocate against child sexual abuse. I have long since set aside using my experiences with sexual abuse as arguments when I am advocating, because most of my advocacy takes place on the internet, where anyone can say anything. It is much harder to argue with verifiable facts than it is to argue with some guy with a weird screenname talking about how he was abused.

This is an especially difficult subject for me to cover, because not only am I limited by my own perspective, I bury my nose in research and news articles far more often than I bury my nose in stories of other survivors. My knowledge of this issue is more academic than it is anything else, so there are things I absolutely cannot relate to. In addition to that, I am not as in touch with my emotions as I could be. Often, it takes me additional time to process how I felt. Just yesterday, I did not realize how tired I was until several hours after I was getting cranky.

Why Facts Are Important

For this, I would like to use an example that may sound a little ridiculous: Let us say that you have a pest problem in your house, but you do not know what kind of pest it is. You have never seen the pests yourself, only the effects: Crumbs, torn packages, that sort of thing. Would you assume it is cockroaches, and buy cockroach spray? Would you keep buying the spray if the pest issue persisted? No, you would attempt to narrow down the suspected pest, so that you know how to deal with it.

Using this example, the first several options are preposterous. You would not use cockroach spray on a mouse, nor a squirrel trap for a cockroach, and you would certainly not buy more solutions for one type of pest if they are ineffective. The best course of action would be to find out what you are dealing with, and then take a next step, so that you can ensure that step is effective at addressing your problem.

This ties into preventing child sexual abuse and sexual assault perfectly, though you would find it difficult to believe. In the 1990's, we began forming policies to address the "pest problem" of sexual crimes without studying who is responsible for these crimes or what impact these policies or "pest traps" would have, and whether they would be effective in solving our sexual crime or "pest problem". Since then, much research has looked not only at these policies, but who is responsible for sexual crimes and what the motivations are. We have identified who the "pests" are, and I will come back to that in a moment.

The results of throwing a pest solution at a pest problem of unknown origin is a shot in the dark at best. Similarly, the results of trying to stop sexual crime with methods that may or may not address sexual crimes are policies that may be completely ineffective at stopping sexual crime. The implications can mean that more victims do suffer from sexual crimes, even though the intent is less sexual crime with fewer victims. I think at this point we can all agree that good intentions, in this case, must be supported by effective policies as well, so that our efforts to stop sex crimes are effective. If more people suffer the pain of sexual crimes because our policies do not do what they are intended to do, that is not a good situation.

Research Is Important

With that having been said, I think there is a lot of value in looking at the research around sexual abuse and sexual assault prevention. In many cases, the facts that exist in research are very counterintuitive to what most people are likely to think about this issue, perhaps even you.

Before I continue, I would like to list five citations for reliable research (among the plethora that exist) that I am familiar with. While it is generally advisable when looking at research studies to look at multiple studies on a subject, I include these because I find them to be representative of the similar studies I have seen, and the academic information available on the subject.

I will list the facts that are drawn from these later, but for now, I want to only include the citations:

1.     Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). DOES A WATCHED POT BOIL? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284-302. doi:0.1037/a0013881

2.     Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412-419. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254

3.     Finkelhor, D. (2009). The Prevention of Childhood SexualAbuse. The Future Of Children, 19(2). 

4.     Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 610-615. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610

5.     Buckman, C., Ruzicka, A., & Shields, R. T. (2016) Help Wanted: Lessons on Prevention from Non-Offending Young Adult Pedophiles. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Forum Newsletter, 28(2).

All of these citations are from prestigious organizations and have been peer-reviewed, which means that other experts familiar with these topics have double-checked them for accuracy and methodological rigor. In other words, not only do the authors of these studies know their stuff, the studies were reviewed by others who likewise know their stuff. I will come back to that list shortly.

An Overview Of Current Initiatives And Policies

Currently, the popular methods of stopping sex crime naturally center around tracking, supervising, and restricting sex offenders. We put them on both public and private lists, so that people and police in our communities know who and where they are. We notify communities when a high-risk offender is moving in. We sometimes prevent them from living and even being near schools, parks, bus stops, and other places where there are children. We seek harsher sentences, in order to deter would-be sex offenders and exact revenge on these people. Sometimes, these sentences vary by location: Larger urban counties tend to use rehabilitative sentences, where smaller urban counties trend towards harsher, lengthier sentences.

Above all of that, we state that only a monster would commit a rape, or a sex crime against a child, and we seek to use the label of “sex offender” to insinuate that these people are monsters. We lump all offenders who have committed a sexual crime into one label: Sex offender.

Many of these policies vary depending on where you live, but all of them are not sentences, but requirements that endure after the completion of whatever sentence the offender was given. In Wisconsin, for example, sex offenders must wear GPS monitors their entire lives, while that is not the case in New York. In California, residency restrictions are being overturned by judges, while in Minnesota, many cities have passed ordinances. In some places, juveniles as young as nine years old are placed on the sex offender registry, and juveniles do perpetrate 35.6% of child sexual abuse cases.

The overwhelming public opinion is that harsher is better when it comes to policies about sex offenders.

Back To That Research...

Remember that research list? Here are some very short summaries about each article (in the above order), based on their abstracts. If you wish to read the abstracts directly, please feel free to use the links and investigate them yourself (studies 3, 4, and 5 are available full-text while you may have to hunt for the other two).

1. Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). DOES A WATCHED POT BOIL? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284-302. doi:0.1037/a0013881
1. This study was a time-series analysis looking at 21 years of arrest data in New York, categorizing arrestees into several categories, determining that 5% of arrests were of registered sex offenders or those with prior sex offenses on their record, and 95% of arrests were of those new to the criminal justice system. 
2. Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412-419. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254
1. This study is an evaluation of sex offender management policies including GPS monitoring, civil commitment, community notification, registration, and restrictions on residency, internet, and others. This article looks at the consequences of these policies, and suggests that the effectiveness of these policies is in question and may do more harm.
3. Finkelhor, D. (2009). The Prevention of Childhood SexualAbuse. The Future Of Children, 19(2).
1. This article details many current methods of preventing child sexual abuse, concluding that efforts to punish and manage offenders are less effective than primary prevention efforts. A wide variety of methods, including sex offender registration and notification, sex offender residency restrictions, child safety education, and others are covered. 
4. Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 610-615. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610
1. This study is one of several vitally important studies looking at the prevalence of pedophilia in those who have convictions involving sexual abuse material, and those who have molested children. While the study’s sample size was limited, they found that 61% of those with sexual abuse material convictions had pedophilia, and 35% of those with molestation convictions had pedophilia. It is generally accepted among researchers that roughly a third of child sexual abusers have pedophilia, though there is no one study that demonstrates that. 
5. Buckman, C., Ruzicka, A., & Shields, R. T. (2016) Help Wanted: Lessons on Prevention from Non-Offending Young Adult Pedophiles. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Forum Newsletter, 28(2).
1. This research update gave a broad overview of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse's "Help Wanted" study, which was based on a podcast done by This American Life. In short, the study they conducted looked at the experiences of offending and non-offending pedophiles to look at common needs that pedophiles have when they are just discovering their sexual attraction to children. The entire point, which was heavily based on the story in the podcast, is that sometimes those with attractions to children are afraid they might molest a child, and the study seeks to answer the question: How can we help those people so that they do not hurt a child? 

As you can see from this information, there is a wide variety of research available to tell us which methods of preventing and stopping sexual abuse and sexual assault work, and which do not. Overwhelmingly, the research literature supports preventative methods over punitive methods. The first study, and sex offender recidivism studies, suggest that the biggest group of people responsible for sexual crimes overall are those with no criminal background. If interventions could reach these people before these crimes are committed, many victims would be spared the sort of pain you had to experience.

Powerful Voices

Child sexual abuse victims, survivors, and their families have been powerful voices for legislative change in the past three decades and beyond. Many of our current policies have been the result of people like you speaking up, and making the statement that sexual crimes should not and cannot be tolerated by the rest of society. I wholeheartedly agree with that message that sexual crime is unacceptable and needs to stop. However, I believe that if we are to be effective in making that vision a reality, we must pay close attention to what the facts and the research say. As I pointed out earlier, if we form policies that are not based in fact, we run the risk of wasting time and resources and creating more victims.

Taking The Politics Out Of Prevention

The goal of preventing child sexual abuse has been political for many years, and I believe it need not be so. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, independents, socialists, and everything in between: We are all human, and we all know that when our youngest members suffer, we all suffer. The suffering of children at the hands of other children and adults who use them for sexual pleasure needs to stop. We can all wholeheartedly agree on that point. Can we agree that to do so, we must focus on the facts involved in these issues, even if they are complex and difficult to understand, accept, or believe? Can we agree that the facts and the research are important to preventing others from knowing the pain of sexual crimes? If we can agree on those points, then we must speak up and let our politicians hear us: Demand that they focus on the research so that others will not know our pain.

Advocating Prevention Means Sex Offender Policies Must Take The Back Seat

Prevention, particularly primary prevention, means that we seek to stop sexual crimes before they can happen. In other words, intervening in the process that leads someone from a stressful background or event to using someone else as a sexual frustration outlet. That means programs need to be available for those sexually attracted to children who fear they might one day act on it, and it means that children need to be educated on sex, sexuality, consent, and what mental health resources are available to them if they are struggling with an issue (any issue, including being victimized or fearing that they might victimize others). There are a wide variety of areas involved in primary prevention, and you can explore all of them by reading the third study above by Dr. Finkelhor.

While criticizing sex offender policies may seem like a bad move, the reality is that at most, they will only ever address less than 5% of new sex crimes (the first study). Compared to primary prevention, which can address up to 95% of new sex crime, the focus on prevention is a no-brainer. The reality is, in addition to not being effective, sex offender policies have been shown in some studies to increase recidivism rather than decreasing it: In other words, they are correlated with more crime, not less.

The Shorter Version…

The simple version of this can be summed up in four points:

1. Despite the difficulty of the subject matter, and because of it, we need to have serious and open conversations about what is and is not effective at impacting sex crime.
2. Research and research-based policies need to be brought into the limelight so that future generations can avoid seeing the kind of pain that survivors of sexual abuse and assault experience.
3. Current policies are focused almost exclusively on a problem that does not have much basis in research.
4. Survivors of sexual abuse and assault have powerful voices that have been effective in seeing legislative changes on this issue, and if these voices speak to effective vs. ineffective policies, real change can be seen.

The future is in your hands. How will you act?

Why "Pedophile" vs. "Child Rapist" Matters To Prevention

This Again?

Apparently I need to cover this again more clearly, since my words can apparently be twisted beyond all recognition. So, yes, I am covering this topic yet one more time in the hopes that I can communicate more clearly what I intend to say about why pedophilia/pedophiles are different from child sex abuse/child rapists.

Most Child Rape Has Nothing To Do With Sex

That is where we will start: Child rape is usually not something that happens because someone wants the sexual pleasure of doing things with children. It is usually more related to power, control, or unmet mental health needs. The unmet mental health needs can range from anything to someone with lots of stress in their life, and the child is an available outlet for that stress to someone who cannot find an appropriate adult sexual partner, and again the child is an available outlet for that unmet need. Even in cases where the child rapist does have an ongoing sex drive towards children, the sex drive is less of an issue than other factors like desperation, depression, anxiety, or feeling in control.

This part is vastly oversimplified due to the fact that motivations behind child sexual abuse are vast and complex enough to fill multiple books. But the overarching point is that an ongoing sex drive towards children is usually unrelated to the motivations behind why someone sexually abuses a child.

That is important because...

...Those With A Sex Drive Towards Children Do Not Usually Rape Children

That may be difficult to believe, but it is true. Those with a sex drive towards children are not usually responsible for raping them. However, a statistically significant (30% or so) portion of sexual abuse does include a sex drive towards children as a factor, which means that something more could be done for these people to manage the issues (like desperation, depression, anxiety, and feeling out-of-control) that can arise from having a sex drive directed at children.

In other words, we need to make sure that those with this sex drive towards children have some way of getting help if they feel they need it- before they feel desperate, depressed, anxious, or out-of-control and are then at-risk for sexually abusing a child. Making help more readily available to someone with a sex drive towards kids means less kids are abused.

...Which Does Not Mean That...

• Child rape is okay
• We should accept pedophiles being sexual with children
• Pedophilia should be normalized (whatever the heck that even means, I have no idea)
• Pedophiles get a free pass to molest children

None of those four bullet points is the point, in any way shape or form. The point is that child rape is bad, and needs to be avoided, and one of the ways we can do that is by making sure that someone who feels sexually inclined towards children has whatever help they feel they might need in facing that sexual inclination. The point to them getting that help is so that they do not rape a child.

Primary Prevention Primer

Maybe I just like words that start with P, and maybe I think people sometimes do not understand how primary prevention differs from, well, prevention. But primary prevention is about stopping child sexual abuse, before it can happen. It means a child is not abused in the first place, as opposed to punishing the living snot out of whoever rapes a child (because at that point, the rape has already happened). Why "as opposed to punishing"? That is somewhat difficult to answer because...

...Mandatory Reporting Hurts Kids

It hurts children by making it less likely that adults who know sexual abuse has happened will report it or direct the child rapist to a therapist because they know that therapist will turn the rapist into the police. Also, it makes children less likely to say that they were abused, because they fear that the rapist (which is usually someone they know, love, and trust) will get in trouble, and because they want to protect the community from the knowledge that this great person that people love and trust is doing these horrid things.

When a mother does not take her teenage kid to a therapist for fear of the therapist calling the police because the teenage kid sexually abused a younger kid, that is a prevention failure. Not only will the teenage kid not be held accountable, they will not be likely to understand why they did that and are at-risk for abusing more children. If our system is set up to punish the snot out of those who rape kids, no matter who they are, it means less rapists are held accountable, less rapists get the mental health help that they need, and it means that rape happens more (which is bad (obviously)).

The Bowtie

A child rapist is someone who has made a choice to hurt a child (regardless of how the rapist justified it or what their motivations were, the behavior to rape a child is a choice). A pedophile is someone who has an ongoing sex drive directed at kids (and has likely never harmed a child). If child sexual abuse is to be prevented, and pedophiles are to get whatever help they feel they need (so that a child is not raped), then we need to keep these terms separate. Thus ends my rant against improper terminology, and my frustration with my apparent inability to communicate clearly what I mean when I say that, "We should pity pedophiles because they have an attraction they cannot help." The part to be pitied is that pedophiles have a sexual attraction to kids that they did not ask for and cannot change, and they can never act on it the way you, I, or most other human beings can be sexual with someone because the someone we are attracted to is old enough to consent to being sexual. That deserves pity, and whatever help they ask for. It does not deserve a correlation with being a child rapist. If someone has not raped a child, they should not be automatically confused with someone who has, regardless of their sexuality.

Practicing Boundaries For The Holidays

The holiday season is a fantastic time to give gifts, relax, eat, and enjoy the companionship of your friends and family. For families with children, it can also be a time of preventing child sexual abuse- before it happens. Yes, you read that right.

The holidays are a time when families with children have relatives over, and what child has never heard something like, "Give uncle Bob a hug!" Or maybe, "Snuggle with grandma." Chances are, most children have been told, at one time or another, that it is appropriate to ignore how they are feeling and show affection or receive... even if they do not want to.

While showing or receiving unwanted affection may seem harmless, this can violate a child's right to their body, as well as interfere with their ability to create healthy boundaries for themselves. It can teach them the message that if an adult asks them to do something, they have to do it, even if they do not want to. It can lead a child to believing that they have to show or receive affection when asked, even if they are uncomfortable with doing so.

Why is this a bad thing? Because without these boundaries in place, a sexual abuser or potential abuser will not raise any flags by grooming the child, or by being sexual with the child. If the child cannot say no to minor things like a hug, tickle, or snuggle, they also cannot say no to major things like a pat on the chest, a grope on the buttocks, or being unclothed. A child who has healthy boundaries can more easily spot when someone is breaking those boundaries and tell a trusted adult.

So, stay safer this holiday season: If you are around children, and you want them to hug you, stop and ask first. Ask them, "Can I give you a hug, or would you rather I didn't?" Respect their response, and regardless of what they say, respond with, "I want you to be able to be honest with me. Thank you for telling me how you feel." There will be other times when they will want hugs, and they will value for life the boundary skills you are teaching them.

Areas Of Concern In Sexual Abuse Prevention

Introduction

There are a great many challenges to tackling sexual abuse prevention, and these challenges must be addressed so that sexual abuse prevention can even be effective.

Terminology

This may be obvious to anyone who has read much in this blog, but people just do not use words right. The incorrect use of terminology can lead to people believing myths about child sexual abuse that simply are not true, sometimes dangerously so. Some obvious examples:

Child pornography (instead, use child sex abuse images or child sexual exploitation material

Pedophile (instead, use sex abuser, child rapist, preferential offender, etc.)

Pedophilia (pedophilia is a condition, a noun, not the act of child sexual abuse)

Child sex worker (children cannot consent, use sexual exploitation victim)

Sexual predator (most do not really fit the category of a true predator, and seems to imply that all abusers are the dangerous recidivists when most are not)

Sex offender (most people who abuse children are not on any registry)

For a full list, check my specificpost on the subject. The media is notorious for using improper terminology, because they attempt to bring pertinent facts about a very wide range of subjects… which means their knowledge in any one subject is extremely limited.

Underreporting... And Methods That Seek To Correct It

The bottom line is that most children do not disclose when they are sexually abused. It is estimated that for every one child that does come forward, another eight do not. In the United States, there has been a big push to pass Erin's Law (predictably named after a sexual abuse survivor named Erin). The idea of Erin's Law is that children are taught fire drills, tornado drills, car safety, water safety, etc... but not about body safety and how to get away from a sexual abuser. The message to children is to get away and tell an adult.

The problem with these educational methods is that it puts the responsibility on children not only to stop abuse, but to overcome the fear and confusion enough to tell an adult. It is a method that I do not endorse or agree with. It is one thing to teach boundaries and body safety, to teach children that they have a right to their bodies and they and only they can decide what is okay and what is not (be it hugs or anything else, the ability to set healthy boundaries is a great thing). But teaching a child, directly or indirectly, that it is their job to get away from an abuser will add to the confusion of sexual abuse.

Any methods involving the education of children must be well-researched and based in factual research, not feel-good methods that sound like a good idea. Plus, it relies on abuse to be occurring to be effective, which makes it a tertiary prevention method, not a primary prevention method. Teaching junior high and high school students about consent, the availability of mental health help for sexuality and sexual issues, and how to find resources to help them with a variety of topics would go a long ways when integrated with a sexual education program.

Disgust

This may be another obvious factor, but most people refuse to touch the subject of child sexual abuse with a ten-foot pole, never mind talk about it. This means that myths abound, no one is aware that it is a serious issue even in their community, and the veil of secrecy that enables abuse to happen is firmly in place.

People are also disgusted by anything related to pedophilia, because the mere idea of people finding children sexually attractive is enough to make people run away from any meaningful discussion. This means that the people remaining to discuss abuse, instead of being average, concerned citizens who could do good, are academics, ethicists, researchers, prevention advocates, activists, and those directly affected by the issue like sex offenders and survivors. This is all fine and good, but when the majority of people are not discussing a serious issue that affects 10-20% of children, all the laws in the world will make a very limited difference.

Mental Health Stigma

This is a vast subject all by itself, but the stigma against mental health issues still persists, and it drives people away from seeking a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist that could help them. This stigma is create not only by bullies, but by people in everyday speech through the language they use to refer to people with mental health issues. People use challenged, touched, disabled, retarded, nutcase, and many other terms to describe people with mental illness, and often, people with mental illness are defined by their mental illness.

What this means is that the myriad of factors that can contribute to mentally unhealthy people can also contribute to crimes like child sexual abuse. People with pedophilia do not seek help because of the stigma against them, and if they have no support system, their lives can turn into a spiral of depression, suicidal thoughts, and desperation that can make it feel like the only way out is to act out sexually. This potential is not limited just to those with pedophilia, and a great many people act out sexually as a way to cope with the internal strife that their lack of mental health can cause. A great many crimes could be avoided if people were readily able to get mental health help without fear of judgment, stigma, and ridicule. Thus, the stigma against mental health is a barrier to primary prevention.

Policy

Many of the laws that aim to prevent child sexual abuse are ineffective in doing so because they are based not in the facts and figures that experts and researchers know and trust, but by the opinions held by politicians, interest groups, and average parents. These groups largely are unaware that the policies they are pushing are ineffective. Why are they ineffective? They target people who have already acted and are unlikely to do so again, or they target children who are unlikely to be able to stop an abuser. They miss the majority of abusers, those we know and trust who have not yet acted or have not yet been caught.

The rights of sex offenders, while certainly relevant to the concerns about policies that seek to address child sexual abuse, are besides the point. The simple fact of the matter is that many of the sex offender laws and policies in place either do not have evidentiary support, or the evidentiary support for them indicates that they make the problems worse and not better by making it more difficult for sex offenders to engage in the sorts of activities that can keep them from re-offending (like starting a family, getting gainful employment, or finding a decent place to live). If our focus is truly the protection of children, then we must look exclusively at the facts and put policies that are based in these facts in place. In much of the United States, Canada, and Europe, we have not done this.

Politics

This may be another obvious area, but primary prevention is an area that is laden with politics. Not every single group supports initiatives that are based in fact, and some support initiatives and laws that have been shown to have an adverse affect on prevention efforts. In other words, not all prevention groups have done their research to know what works, and many prevention groups support initiatives that do not support prevention. Not everyone is on the same page, and there is often a divide between interest groups that aim to prevent, aim to educate, or aim to help survivors of sexual abuse. Not only this, but there are Republican efforts to prevent sexual abuse, and most of these efforts are tertiary prevention methods, while Democratic efforts tend to lean more towards softer approaches like rehabilitating and making resources available. These efforts appear to be as opposed as the rest of the two-party system is. As long as this divide remains, children will continue to suffer.

Wrap-Up

Primary prevention can prevail, and is a serious trend among many prevention agencies. While it may remain foreign in the minds of most people, it will eventually win out over the "punishment first" mentality that many of our current laws were written with. I believe these challenges will eventually be overcome, particularly if people continue discussing these hard issues.

The Politics Of Prevention

Prevention… Political?

Yes, the area of prevention is very political. Unfortunately, preventing child sexual abuse is not nearly as straightforward as researching the facts surrounding the issue, forming policies to address the facts, and getting those policies put in place. There are interest groups, such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), Rape Abuse Incest National Network (RAINN), Darkness to Light (D2L), Stop It Now, Abuse Stoppers, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Parents For Megan’s Law (PFML), and a number of other state-specific prevention organizations or abuse survivor networks. The problem? None of these organizations is united in the things that can help stop sexual abuse.

For example, the NCMEC this year pushed heavily for the passing of the Adam Walsh Renewal of 2016, a number of laws related to the sex offender registry. As I have stated many times, the facts do not support a sex offender registry being the most effective method of protecting children, given that most who are caught and sentenced do not repeat their crimes. PFML obviously pushes for Megan’s Law to be broader and works with the state of New York to monitor registered sex offenders. Yet none of these approaches is based in fact, and that should be disturbing to many people. Yet, it is not.

The One With The Most Resources Wins

A basic fact of any legislative battle over anything these days is that the party with the most resources to throw at an initiative is going to win. What this means is that, regardless of the efficacy of the initiative, if it has enough backing by enough money and people, that initiative takes the cake. That is why the Adam Walsh Renewal Act of 2016 passed this year. That is why International Megan’s Law was passed this year, even though it has zero basis in fact: People believe what politicians, media outlets, and interest groups tell them, even if what they are being told has no basis in fact.

Two Parties And A Lot Of Stupidity

I suppose that stupidity is a rather strong word that is best left out of academic circles, but the basic fact of the matter is that Republican candidates consistently vote down initiatives to provide comprehensive sexual education to children and that Democrats generally support these initiatives. Republicans often vote up measures to be “tougher on crime”, and Democrats generally vote up measures that provide “restorative justice”.

This is stupid. Why is this stupid? Because politicians are not experts in these fields. Psychologists, criminologists, researchers… all of the people dealing with the facts of these issues do not side with a particular political party. They side with what is effective, but that is not what gets popularity, votes, or public approval. One might ask what the point of having experts is if no one is willing to listen to them and do what they suggest.

The Rub

The political nature of these things amounts to a huge rub in the face of humanity. That rub is that putting in place systems and policies that are ineffective at rectifying the very problem they seek to correct means that, no matter what the issue is, the problem is not addressed in the most effective method possible. When that issue is child sexual abuse, that rub is not just a rub. It is pathetic and appalling, and should have every single person up in arms protesting the policies that do not do nearly enough to stop children from being sexually abused.

I wish I could say something light-hearted, like, “If the American public was aware of half of the facts around child sexual abuse, they would demand abolishing sex offender registries for all but the most heinous of recidivists.” The problem with that… is that most Americans do not even read up on the issue of child sexual abuse. No one cares enough, or they are uncomfortable discussing it, reading about it, and learning about it. Say what you will about effective marketing, but my blog only has a total of 6,300 page views to date. Yet I think most people would agree that the best method for solving a problem is to prevent it from becoming a problem in the first place. But when it comes to child sexual abuse, one must know why that is more effective before they can support primary prevention.

My Wish

My hope is that America, and indeed the rest of the world, wakes up to the reality that child sexual abuse is a large issue that affects a significant portion of the population, and that is just the statistics we know about. Sexual abuse and sexual assault are very underreported crimes. So my wish is that we stop bickering over what the solution is, listen to the experts that deal with this issue every day, and put systems in place that are based not in a political agenda, but on facts and research. I suppose that holds true for any issue, but child sexual abuse is too big an issue to get wrong. What will your contribution be?

Why Sexual Education Is Necessary To Primary Prevention

Sexual Education Should Be Mandatory

Sexual education of children is essential to the prevention of sexual abuse, before it can happen. This also applies to sexual assault. I believe that sexual education should be required of all children in every country in an age-appropriate format. But I am sure that saying that much may have shocked you, and you may wonder what the reasons I have are.

Say What?

Let us begin with defining what sexual education means. Sexual education is the educating of children about the topics and mechanics involved in sex and sexuality, but that is not all that it is. Sexual education means teaching children about safe sex practices, about consent, and about sexual boundaries. It also means teaching children that if they are having an issue of a sexual nature, they can get help for it.

Let me expand what I mean by that. If a child has been the victim of sexual abuse or assault, it means that the child hears they can get help and they can tell someone. They may not even realize that what was done to them was abusive. If a child has sexual thoughts towards someone else that they would like to act out, but have no idea how to go about that, they might seek help if they know they can. Some have no idea that is even an option.

It also means that if someone is wrestling with pedophilia, or a sexual attraction to children, they hear the message that there is help and they do not have to face it alone. You see, sexual education does not just mean teaching children about sex. Facing reality, they will find out about sex eventually. As rational human beings, we would prefer that they do not find out by watching pornography and getting an unrealistic idea of what sex is. Right?

Guidance Versus No Guidance

So… what happens when a child starts having sexual feelings, but they have no guidance for them? We know that there is age-appropriate and age-inappropriate sexual behavior, and we know that it is possible for children to sexually abuse other children. In the absence of knowing what to do with sexual feelings, or unwanted sexual advances, or sexual issues and struggles, they will do what children often do: Experiment. Sometimes, that experimentation is expected and does not harm other children. But sometimes, the other child is traumatized by such experimentation.

It is obviously beneficial for children to have guidance so that they learn what is and is not socially acceptable, and so that they can avoid harming someone else. Sexual education is essential to preventing child sexual abuse for that reason.

Everyone Makes It Political

Sexual education is a political topic for many, because there are differing approaches to sexual education. Some want abstinence education, or trying to teach children that they should abstain from sex before marriage. Some want comprehensive sexual education, or teaching children everything from the mechanics, boundaries, and expectations around sex to the physical health aspects of the risk of STD’s, AIDS/HIV, and safe sex. Others want to teach children about LGBTQ issues, so that children who have attractions to their same sex have resources to utilize, support groups to go to, or someplace to go to know they are not alone.

Let me cut through the political messes on this issue and ask you a simple question… If sexual education is not taught in school, and you are a parent, are you willing to honestly answer every question your child has about sex? Are you capable of having that conversation in a professional, calm atmosphere, without freaking out because it is your child asking the questions? Do you have what it takes to ensure that your child does not walk away with the message that sex is inherently wrong or evil?

I ask that because many parents struggle with how to have those conversations, because of how emotionally involved they are and because they may not know what to say or how to teach their children what they need to know about sex. They may have no idea what their child even needs to know about sex, or why they need to know it. Sexual education should not be a political issue. Part of being human for the vast majority of humanity is having sexual feelings, just as the vast majority of humanity needs a job, shelter, food, clothing, etc. We teach children about these things, but we sometimes expect them to just figure the sex aspect out on their own.

That is a dangerous expectation for reasons I have already outlined. It is also possible for children to commit crimes because they do not know that what they did is a crime. Sexual education can teach children not only the parts about sex that make us squirm, it can teach them ethics of how to behave so that they do not harm others, or themselves, through sexual behavior.

Putting Facts First

Rather than making the issue political, we should go where the facts go. Are there studies that look at which kinds of sexual education are more effective at teaching body safety? Are there studies that look at the sexual behaviors of children with differing kinds of sexual education? Are the results of some forms of education more advantageous compared to others? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking, for the sake of our children. I am not going to propose studies or link you to any. Go Google it. Go find out the information. Explore the topic.

I have no idea what political background you, dear reader, may be coming from. But let me explain mine: My father is a republican, and my mother does not care about politics. We never discussed politics much in our house. I formed my own ideas. I am neither a democrat or a republican. There are issues that I find to be important, and I vote on those issues and choose the candidate I prefer based on that. I do not believe it is rational or sane to stick to a particular political platform. I suppose it is possible I just insulted someone, but my point is that sticking to a particular ideology is fallacious because it can all too easily lead us to conclusions that are not based on facts.

On issues involving crime, when we form ideas based solely on ideology and not on the facts of varying approaches, we can enable more crime to happen through negligence. That is not in anyone’s best interests, particularly where children are concerned. Child sexual abuse is an epidemic that demands that the facts be placed above ideology, religion, political party platform, or opinions. We cannot prevent child sexual abuse before it happens by only doing what we think is best. We must consult facts, studies, and experts on the subjects involved so that the best course of action to protect children is taken.

Conclusion

I hope you can see better my perspective, and the perspective of primary prevention, on why sexual education is necessary. I hope you have the time to research what works and what does not work, and I hope that children are important enough to you that you are willing to put aside your own ideas and look at the facts. Sexual abuse and sexual assault cannot be adequately prevented if the facts do not matter.

Issues In Mandatory Reporting

Introduction

Mandatory reporting can be an immensely complex topic to cover. Given the pushes in the United Kingdom for mandatory reporting, I think it is necessary to address some of the failures that mandatory reporting can have, as well as some of the misconceptions of what mandatory reporting calls for. I think that in the United Kingdom, there are particular concerns about whistleblowers who may wish to report what they know to be an abusive situation, but fear that their job may be on the line. This is a separate issue from mandatory reporting. So, this post will aim to address the difference between mandatory reporting and whistleblower protection, and the pitfalls of mandatory reporting.

Issues In Mandatory Reporting

One of the biggest issues that comes to mind with mandatory reporting is the reality of who sexually abuses children, or for that matter, the reality of who abuses children in general. The public perception seems to continue to be that dirty strangers and sex offenders abuse children, or sexually abuse children. However, the reality is that over 90% of those who sexually abuse children are people known and trusted by both the child and the community around the child. With sexual assault as a whole, that statistic is still above 80%. In other words, in the majority of these cases the perpetrator is someone who is known, trusted, and well-liked in the community of the child.

When you love someone, the last thing you want for them are the legal hassles of being arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. You can tell yourself until you are blue in the face that it does not matter who the person is, if they are sexually abusing your child, you will report them immediately. I really do not care what you tell yourself, but the reality is not at all that simple. Say you are married with children, and you find out that your husband or wife is sexually abusing one of the children. You want them and the child, first and foremost, to get mental health help to wade through the issue and ensure it does not happen again.

Another common public perception is that most of the time someone does sexually assault or abuse someone, they will inevitably reoffend. Please stop here. Go to the right-hand side of this blog, and at the top you will find, “Resources:Studies And Articles”. Click it. You can pick any number of studies and articles in this resource, but the facts and statistics firmly establish the fact that most people who sexually take advantage of someone else will not do so again. The facts also show that help is effective in dropping the number of people who re-offend. While recidivism rates are far from perfect, they are a great general indicator of how likely to re-offend a particular criminal population is.

So, let us visit a few scenarios:

1.      A single parent who discovers that a teenage son or daughter is sexually abusing a younger sibling.

2.      A married couple with children, and one of the couple discovers that the other is sexually abusing the children.

3.      A married couple without children, and one of the couple discovers that the other is volunteering with children, and takes individual children to private places for unknown reasons. They suspect something might be going on.

4.      Someone who has sexual attractions to children, and fears they might someday act upon their attractions.

5.      Someone who has sexually abused a child and wants to get help to stop and make sure it does not happen again.

In each of these scenarios, which are likely very common, you have people who, under mandatory reporting laws, would not be mandated to report the abuse. However, if any of these people see a therapist, that therapist would be required, under mandatory reporting, to tell law enforcement about that situation. All of these people are either very close to the abusive person (1-3), or they are the abusive person (4-5). If they are aware that seeing a therapist means the involvement of law enforcement, how likely are they to seek help?

That just covers five scenarios not involving mandatory reporters. Now, let us take a glance at some situations that could involve mandatory reporters, under mandatory reporting laws:

1.      A social worker, teacher, or church official that becomes aware of abuse within the child’s family.

2.      A social worker, teacher, or church official that becomes aware that a coworker is abusing a child.

3.      A police officer that becomes aware that their partner or boss is abusing a child.

4.      A doctor or nurse that becomes aware that their direct supervisor is abusing a child.

5.      Someone who works in any one profession that requires mandatory reporting, but knows someone in their personal life who is abusing a child.

Suddenly, mandatory reporting stops being straightforward. Does the person in the first scenario do their duty and rip apart the child’s family, which is also traumatic for a child? Does the person in situations 2-4 shatter their workplace with such a revelation? If their country does not have whistleblower protection laws, which shield someone in those situations from losing their job, will they be risking their job? How likely are any of these people to say anything in the absence of mandatory reporting laws? How likely is it that, under mandatory reporting laws, these people will be making a difficult situation even more traumatic, not only for the child, but all of the people around them?

Mandatory reporting may sound like the right thing to do at first, but these ten situations raise a number of questions that do not have solid answers. Countries that have mandatory reporting, like the United States and Canada, sometimes will have procedures in place for law enforcement to limit the trauma of involving the police. These procedures are not in place in every situation, and come places will have child protective services, family court, or a similar setup to ensure that fairness and justice are both in place. Child advocates, lawyers, judges, juries, therapists, social workers… the complications to each of these situations are not as simple as “make them report it to police”.

Whistleblower Laws

Some countries, like the United States, have what are called “whistleblower” laws to protect people who know of illegal activity within the company from facing retaliation for reporting the illegal activity to the police. These whistleblower laws do not mandate that people report such activity, but they do give them legal protections and courses of action to take if their employer retaliates against them if they choose to make such a report. These laws give added protection and are aimed at limiting the actions that employers can take in response to such a report being filed.

Pedophiles

I must stop a moment to address something that most people do not consider, and that is the reality that pedophiles do not always abuse children. A pedophile is someone with sexual attractions to young children, and there is academic evidence to suggest that not all pedophiles are even a danger to children. Observing that reality does not make me some kind of “sex offender advocate”, or mean that I am “taking the side of sex offenders”. It means I recognize a fact that is related to the issue of child sexual abuse. I have discussedthe estimates that can be made based on what we know about these issues, and these estimates show that using the most conservative estimate of the number of pedophiles, only 8% or less are known to sexually abuse children.

With that being said, and as you probably realize with me having to dedicate an entire paragraph to explain it, pedophilia is an extremely stigmatized condition. If you wish to know more about this stigma, please copy “stigma against pedophiles” into Google, as it is not the main focus here.

However, it should be pointed out that most mental health providers do not have specific experience with pedophilia or other sexual issues. There have also been many horror stories of pedophiles being reported to the police merely for talking with a therapist about their attractions in order to get help with them. Therefore, the common assumption among pedophiles is that if their country has mandatory reporting, it is not safe to talk with a therapist about the issues they are experiencing. Sexual abusers who are sexually attracted to children (“pedophilic”, in other words) make up about a third of sexual abusers. Imagine if even half of those people felt they were able to get professional help, before they had sexually abused a child.

Conclusion

Mandatory reporting is not an ideal solution to child sexual abuse. It can cause more issues than it solves by pushing people further away from mental health help, and it can have the added effect of stigmatizing mental health issues. Other solutions besides mandatory reporting, like whistleblower laws, should be considered in the UK instead, and a closer look must be paid to the child sexual abuse prevention program Don't Offend: Germany's Prevention Program. The United States has had a “Help Wanted” study this year to look at what pedophiles report that they needed in adolescence to help them with pedophilia. A great many organizations exist to reduce and eliminate the stigma around mental health issues. We must investigate other alternatives to mandatory reporting.