Primary Prevention in 2017

I do have some goals for 2017 in regards to primary prevention. This list has no bearing on any future projects, I mean, the whole tone of New Year's resolutions and the like.
I would like to break them down into several categories:

1. Educating The Public
2. Sex Offender Registration
3. Sex Offender Notifications
4. Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
5. Educating Families
6. Sexual Education
7. Miscellaneous Sex Offender Restrictions

These categories are distinct from the mission statement I have, as these are unique to 2017 and are based on what was accomplished last year. Each goal, in detail:

Educating The Public

The public has a right to know basic and counter-intuitive information about sex crimes. In 2017, it would be ideal if the average person knew what I would say are the top three facts about child sexual abuse: 95% of sex offenses are from first-time offenders (not sex offenders), 90% of abuse is perpetrated by those known and trusted by the victim, and child sexual abuse affects 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 4 girls by the time they turn 18. Will you help the facts about child sexual abuse be known in 2017?

Sex Offender Registration

Sex offender registration has become onerous in the political realm, as well as a financial burden. The trend in 2016 was that the registration requirements of sex offenders do not align with the biggest risks to the general public. Seeing more judicial wins in 2017 that strike down onerous requirements that distract from real public safety threats would be a plus.

Sex Offender Notifications

Sex offender notification has become, to some people (like the vigilante Donna Zink in Washington State, who refuses to read studies on the subject), a way of preventing sex crime. However, many studies and articles surfaced in 2016 (like this one and this one, and this Quartz article and this one for honorable mentions) showing that these notifications only do well under certain circumstances. Therefore, it would be helpful in 2017 if the notification requirements in some areas (similar to the judicial wins on registration) would be lessened.

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

This is perhaps one of the biggest areas that needs addressing: States and cities that believe that by restricting where sex offenders can live, when they have been shown to have the opposite effect of increasing recidivism and homelessness. More judicial wins that strike down sex offender residency restrictions would be a fantastic win in 2017 (Michigan gets honorable mentions here for their recent supreme court win, which among other things, struck down residency requirements for some offenders).

Educating Families

Families knowing how to prevent child sexual abuse, before it happens, by knowing the warning behaviors in potential abusers is nothing but positive. The more families are aware in 2017 that a potential abuser can look very much like a great mentor for children, the better. Also, the more resources that are available to the general public, the better. I may or may not have something in the works in that regard, but of course, I cannot confirm or deny that as of yet.

Sexual Education

As with educating families, the more children and teens know the facts about sex and sexuality, the more prepared they will be to make informed decisions about sexual behavior. The more prepared they are, the more they will be able to ask for help if they need it. If more states pass legislation requiring sexual education (or sexual abuse education), primary prevention will be furthered in 2017.

Miscellaneous Sex Offender Restrictions

There are many sex offender restrictions that have no bearing on public safety, like social media use. Other restrictions have included registering any and all internet accounts, avoiding libraries (because the children), and avoiding the state fair (because sex offenders lurk in the shadows waiting to kidnap your children, apparently). Can it just be said that the more restrictions are based in factual information, like studies and such, the better? 

Let us all make 2017 a safe place for children, and do what we can to stop child sexual abuse... before it happens. Let us ring in the new year, remembering our most vulnerable people: Children.

Oh, and there are some hints in this post for something big that might be coming in 2017, in case you missed them. Enjoy the New Year, 2017.

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?

To Catch Sexual Solicitors

Say What?

Many have heard the term "sexual predators", and there has been a decent amount of publicity around stings where someone, sometimes law enforcement, pose as children to try to lure people into potential illegal activity. The most famous is the show "To Catch A Predator". I take serious issue with using the word "predator" so lightly. Yes, lightly.

People who go online for solace from whatever is going on in their lives may or may not be looking specificaly for children for sex. There are a variety of motivating factors for their internet use and behavior. It is also worth noting that most of the people caught were not previously registered on a sex offender registry.

Accuracy

First and foremost, I would like to start with a little bit about accuracy. One of the links on the side of this blog is to an article discussing the protection of children from online sexual exploitation and solicitation. In it, they discuss a survey that many advocacy groups have since cited to say that online sexual exploitation and solicitation affects one in five children. Except that the survey itself found that adults only accounted for 3% of the online solicitation discussed in the survey. In other words, online solicitation does not affect one in five children, but 3%. Already we see that online solicitation of children is overblown.

I have discussed in other posts how the term "predator" is not only overused, but misused. There is no consensus on what it means to be a sexual predator, and most sex offenders, who have automatically earned the label of sexual predator just for violating a particular statute, do not reoffend sexually. Of those, only a small fraction have antisocial personality disorder (that means that only a small fraction of sex offenders who reoffend are psychopaths).

Why does this matter, you ask? Well, if we as a society are treating every single sex offender, regardless of their actual risk level, as if they will inevitably reoffend, what do you suppose that does to the sex offenders in question? Have you ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? By ostracizing sex offenders, we increase recidivism. Common sense says that. The Center for Sex Offender Management says that. Expert therapists say that. Yet the American people, and people around the world, are stubbornly clinging to the idea that sex offenders are dangerous, end of story. This is a myth.

Using the term "sexual predator" to refer to every single person who meets the qualifications for the label "sex offender" overreaches the intent of sex offender laws. The idea behind the sex offender registry was to create a list for law enforcement to use when a sex crime with no further leads happened. It was originally meant as an investigative tool (if you want a full history, you can find one here). Now, it is a label that we use to ruin someone's life, regardless of the circumstances in which a crime was committed, regardless of their likelihood to reoffend.

Sympathy? Or Prevention?

Should you feel sympathy for these people? Probably, but that is not my point here. My point is that when you take anyone who has behaved a certain way, and treat all of them the same and ignore the reasons why they behaved that way, you have no way to weed out the people who will learn their lesson the easy way, those who will learn their lesson the hard way (or anything in between easy and hard), and those who will inevitably reoffend. Without being able to make those distinctions, we recreate the tragedy of the original sexual offense and allow it to continue. Not only does the behavior affect the victim and the perpetrator, it affects everyone around the perpetrator as well. That is why Women Against Registry exists.

And without those distinctions, we cannot sentence people in accordance with the severity of the circumstances in which the crime was committed. The people who could have just gotten help and re-entered the community now are haunted the rest of their lives. And the facts tell us that these people are not some small minority of sex offenders, they are 85% or more. Nationwide, over 600,000 people who can never move on and are treated the same as the remaining 200,000 or so. There are risk assessments that can accurately make these determinations. But we do not use them, under the myth that those who have offended sexually once will do so again.

Stings And Cuffs, Not Help And Empathy

One of the biggest problems with stings is that they aim to slap cuffs on whomever takes the bait, without regard to the consequences. As I detailed in my recent post about sex offenders, not all sex offenders are mandated to treatment as part of their sentence, even though treatment can cut recidivism by half. Studies show that not only do sex offenders not reoffend, treatment is extremely effective.

Why does this matter, you ask? Because the people who are not motivated by sex, but were just lonely and looking for the first person who paid attention to them, are now slapped with a label they do not deserve. Because the people who are seeking out children are a small minority, and they are now lost in the crowd of people who are not seeking out children.

Most of these people would do fine with probation and treatment. Most of these people need the adult equivalent of a 10-minute time-out and a chat about why they hit little Sally on the playground, and be asked what can be done to help them not do it again. A little planning session to figure out why Sally was hit, and how to avoid it in the future. The adult equivalent is therapy, not months or years in jail or prison. They need better coping mechanisms, better decision-making, a better support system of people to go to when they are feeling negative about life. What they need is hardly what they get by slapping cuffs on them.

So, what happens when you take someone who would ordinarily be amenable to treatment, wants to rebuild their life in a positive way, but give him a stiff fine and jail time, without being given resources to help him rebuild? That very question is the issue with the term "sexual predator" being used lightly. By putting all of these systems to punish in place, and not enough to figure out why the offense occurred and guide people to the help they need, we increase sex crimes.

Terminology, Again And Again And Again

The word "predator" implies an instinctive drive to prey upon something. It refers to an animal or human that seeks to get something by finding that prey and getting what they want. Mercy is not implied. Conscience is not implied. Mitigating factors are not implied, just the predator-prey relationship and the innate drive.

It is not a word that can be applied to most sexual offenders. We know this through the facts we have at our disposal that show that most do not reoffend. We know this through the expert therapists who have said... sexual offending is not about sex. It is about terrible coping mechanisms to deal with the pressures and trials of life. We have the experts, we have the research, we have the knowledge. But we as a nation, as a world, are refusing to believe the facts.

Therefore, I recommend sexual solicitors, or sexual solicitors of children. If we must make the same old mistake of defining people by the negative behaviors they did, then we could at least define them accurately rather than playing on people's fears, on myths, and on blind hype. If we are to use the weighty, loaded terms, let us use them on the recidivists, the true psychopaths, the minority that deserve such labels. Not on anyone we pretend we cannot understand because they are "not human".

The Statute Of Limitations

A Bit Of Backstory

Have you ever been to law school? I have not either. I got the same basic overview of how the government works that you probably did: The three branches exist to create checks and balances, blah, blah, blah... It has been quite a few years since taking those classes.

But one thing I do know is that the United States Constitution and its amendments exist to ensure that people are treated with fairness and equality, even those accused of crimes. They exist to ensure that the government does not create laws that single people out, deal cruel or unusual punishment, and create a system in which people are treated as people. The recent trend with sex offender laws has been to ignore these rights and laws when it is convenient to "protect the public" and other non-proven fallacious reasons.

There has been a push lately in several states to eliminate the criminal statute of limitations for child sex crimes. Here in Minnesota, that push came several years ago and resulted in eliminating the civil statute of limitations. In other words, victims can come forward at any time in their life to sue and get money from their abuser. This sounds like a great idea, given the financial and other impacts that child sexual abuse has on its victims. However, there is one problem with pushing for this for the criminal statute of limitations: It does not prevent child sexual abuse.

It is yet another piece of legislation, like our current sex offender registry, that is created to punish and ostracize people for committing a particular crime. Yes, that crime is gruesome and has horrid consequences for the victims. However, the criminal justice system is not in place to exact vengeance on criminals, but to ensure that they pay a cost for what they did, and be reformed enough to make sure it will not happen again. That idea of reform is why probation and parole exist.

Many, if not most, child sexual abusers in larger counties will get a sentence of probation, maybe with a little bit of jail time. While repeat abusers and abusers in smaller counties do end up in prison, they are usually paroled if they have good behavior. While I am unfamiliar with the legal concepts involved here, I will say this: Getting a conviction well past the statute of limitations for a crime like child sexual abuse is unlikely to yield prison time or even jail time, particularly if the accused has spent any length of time in the community without similar allegations coming forward. As I have discussed before, the likelihood that sex offenders and child sexual abusers will repeat their crimes is much lower than that of an average criminal. So the whole "prevent another child from being abused" is just a distraction, not a real argument.

I Am Against Changing The Criminal Statute Of Limitations

I am against changing the criminal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, because doing so would not only draw out a victim's pain when they do decide to come forward (by way of a trial that rehashes old memories and feelings), it is extremely unlikely to assist in the prevention of the crime in the first place. It is aimed at punishing people well after their transgressions have occurred, at which point the aim is not justice, restitution, or closure, but about exacting vengeance upon the accused. While child sexual abuse is certainly a crime with very low false reporting, changing the criminal statute of limitations can create a system in which someone literally has no defense against an accusation because of the nature of the crime involved, and that can be abused. I am also against changing the criminal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse because of the impact it has on the victims. Holding onto that baggage further by seeking "justice" against the abuser means that the abuser continues to have control over the victim... by the victim's own choice.

For Victims

I would encourage victims to forgive, heal, and move on so as to not give any more power to the abuser that had such a large impact on their life. Holding that grudge does not affect your abuser, it affects you. Perhaps I am being overly harsh and direct in saying that. Perhaps I have no idea what sort of pain you went through. Perhaps I do not know enough about the legal issues involved. However, your abuser already took things from you when they abused you. Holding a grudge against them means you are letting them take more time, emotion, and energy from you, but this time by your choice and not theirs. Most programs will tell you that someone goes from being a victim, to being a survivor, to being a thriver. You cannot get to being a thriver by holding onto what happened. You need to let it go: Not for them, not so they get away with it (they already have), but for you. You deserve peace.

Circumcision: Why I Mention It

Introduction

Circumcision has been in the news recently, although you probably skim over it. The Huffington Post recently did an article about it, and the New York Post did an article awhile back. Male circumcision has been claimed to have health benefits and is said to reduce the risk of STD's/STI's. However, the science and ethics of circumcision make it perfect fodder for this blog.

My Story

Circumcision has always been an odd topic for me. Growing up, I always peppered my mother with questions like why my penis had a ring around it, and I was always baffled by her answer: "Because you were circumcised as a baby." So, I asked what that was, only to get, "They removed your foreskin." And I asked what that was, and I never really understood what it meant. All I really understood was that people were healthier without it, that it is easier to clean without it.

Hindsight is always 20/20, they say, and they are right. Finally, when I was in middle school, I saw a picture of an "uncut" male, and I understood what was missing. The part that stood out to me was that the foreskin had veins and seemed to be very much a part of the rest of the penis. That is when I first started feeling loss, and that the choice was not mine. My thought at the time was that my parents had a part of my penis cut off because a doctor said it was better for me. It seemed odd.

Fast forward into high school, and I still felt that same loss, and it was the same in college. As I started getting into learning about child sexual abuse and the issues surrounding it, I was getting into ways of improving myself. I was figuring out that there were things about me that I always saw as permanent that could change. Some of them were psychological- that I could change how I thought about myself. Others were more educational- that I could learn another language, as I had always wanted to do. But one of the tie-ins was physical: That I could restore my foreskin.

Foreskin... restoration?

Yes, foreskin restoration. The process works on the same principle as those that put guages in their ears, or plates, or neck stretching: You put skin or some other body part under a mild amount of stretching/stress, and the body can be molded as desired. There are devices sold that can help accomplish this. I thought it was a great idea because it is a long process that becomes habitual over time.

Ethical Issues

I see circumcision and intactivism (the advocacy for an intact penis and against male genital mutilation, as circumcision is sometimes called) as a basic human rights issue just like child sexual abuse is. In a case of child sexual abuse, the child is subjected to behavior they are not ready to handle and do not have any control over. In a case of circumcision, the child is subjected to a surgical procedure that is usually medically unnecessary and does not have any control over. Both are human rights violations.

While the harm between the two varies, the ethical issues are very similar. Circumcision has risk of complications that in some cases cause permanent damage to the penis. The damage is physical and only partially reversible. The nerves, the mechanism that holds the foreskin to cover the glans/head of the penis, the frenulum and the function and role it has to the function of the foreskin are still lost. While the functions can be partially restored, the skin will not stay on the glans the same as if the penis had never been circumcised.

To take that away from a child without their ability to choose it is barbaric, just as it is barbaric to take a child's innocence by sexually abusing them. The idea that circumcision is done for health reasons is just a distorted justification because of the poor science that is used to support that justification (there are many other articles on the subject), similar to the reasoning that a child molester uses to justify their abuse is just a justification.

A Child Has a Right To Their Body

The bottom line with both issues is the right of the child: In circumcision, the child has a right to an intact body and to make informed decisions about their body. In the absence of medical necessity, the child is being physically altered for no reason. In child sexual abuse, the child has a right to live a trauma-free life that does not involve people crossing their boundaries. That is why prevention advocates often talk about children having the ability to set boundaries and make their own decisions. The right of the child takes priority in both issues, and the concern in both is for the child.

That is why I occasionally tweet about circumcision, and that is why I am an intactivist. I do not see how anyone could be against child sexual abuse because of the rights of the child, but be pro-circumcision and ignore the rights of the child. It does not make sense and is hypocritical to be against one form of human rights violations, but in favor of another violation. My advocacy, if nothing else, is aimed at being consistent.

Defining Child Sexual Abuse: A Therapeutic Approach

It is always helpful to define terms, particularly when terms can be as controversial as the subject matter is. Child sexual abuse is a controversial topic because it is a broad topic. Contained in that one subject are consent laws, mandatory reporting laws, civil laws aimed at improving public safety, SORNA, residency restrictions, sex offenders, law enforcement training, and a slew of other items. Many people love to debate controversial issues.

I used to be one of those people, but on this topic, I have a generally narrower focus. I specifically avoid the legal subjects involving age of consent and mandatory reporting because those issues are never-ending. I also avoid using a legal definition of child sexual abuse, because it is overly broad. It is possible for a legal act of child sexual abuse to occur, yet have the legal victim be an enthusiastic participant in the activity, particularly among older teenagers. It is also possible for teens to send explicit images of themselves to others, and have them be legally charged with child pornography, with themselves being both the legal victim and perpetrator.

That is why I avoid legal conversations. I avoid age of consent, because no matter what number is picked, there will always be someone below that number who is mature enough to consent, and someone above that number who is not mature enough to consent. I likewise try to avoid a legal definition of child sexual abuse: No matter how diligent or understanding the police are, there will always be someone arrested for something that was not harmful to the legal victim.

Therapeutic?

I try my best to be clear that when I talk about child sexual abuse, I use a therapeutic approach. In my treatment/support group, they considered a sexual offense as an act that crossed someone's sexual boundary in a way that harmed or traumatized them. For me, the definition of child sexual abuse is tied with harm done to the victim: If there was no harm, there was no victim, if there was no victim, it was not abuse. The act is tied to sexual exploitation and the aftermath of the act: If the act was done by someone several years older than the victim, and the act was sexually exploitative, coercive, and resulted in harm, it was abusive.

So... what is a child?

In talking about perpetrators of abuse of said children, there is typically an age difference of at least a few years. For example, an 11-year-old touching the private parts of a 7-year-old would be considered child sexual abuse if the 7-year-old was harmed. Developmentally, such behavior is not expected or considered the norm. If a 7-year-old is touching the private parts of another 7-year-old, that behavior is considered normal curiosity and exploration. The key is an age difference. Many groups push for considering anyone under 18 a child, but I do not think the reality is that simple unless a therapeutic definition is used for abuse.

Practically speaking...

That is great, but how does that look practically? An adult who photographs a child when they are nude is sexually abusive if that child is harmed in the process, or afterwards by knowing the photograph is on the internet. They are not if the child is unharmed during or afterwards (still illegal). Someone several years older who touches a child's private parts are sexually abusive if the child is uncomfortable with it, and are harmed by it. They are not abusive if the child is unharmed and okay with it (still illegal). Someone who, as a 19-year-old, has sex with their 15-year-old lover, is sexually abusive if the 15-year-old was harmed and did not consent to the act. They are not abusive if the teen was unharmed and consented (still illegal in the US). A lewd conversation between an adult and a child, if the child was harmed, it was abusive (legal unless solicitation was involved).

Those are just a few out of many possible situations. You might ask me, "How can you describe a situation where a child goes through that and isn't harmed? That's impossible." However, those situations are real and documented. There are a number of studies that show that there are some children who are either unharmed, or move past the event enough that it ended up not being traumatic. Running With Scissors is a book where one such situation is detailed by the author. The book is an autobiography. As I have pointed out before, those situations do not justify or make legal the acts that do not result in harm, it means a therapeutic definition is important.

Researchers prefer to view those situations as examples of people overcoming potentially traumatic events. I have the perspective that these children are well-adjusted because they were able to accurately examine how they felt about the events, and decided for themselves that they were not harmed. You could say that these children are very robust and emotionally healthy, because they were able to look at an event and decide for themselves how they felt about it. Here is one great example of an act that was consensual, that the teenager did not report harm, but was still illegal and still overreacted to by the adults in their life. Bear in mind that this would have still been illegal if the man was not on probation for a different sex crime. Also, that case is a great example for groups that discuss age of consent laws. They would point out that in most parts of the world, including Europe, that act would not have been illegal. It perfectly illustrates why legal discussions on this subject are never-ending: What if the girl was 15? 14? 12? What if she still consented then? How does she know what consent is?

Primary prevention tie-in?

The presence of these situations is critical to the primary prevention of child sexual abuse, and here is why. The presence of these situations means that there are children who knew their own boundaries and feelings well enough to know when something did or did not cross those boundaries. It is a win for primary prevention, because these select few children were able to express themselves clearly. It serves as a model for what happens when children are able to create, set, and maintain their own boundaries. If they are able to look at something potentially traumatic as a neutral event, they will likewise be better able to determine when something crosses boundaries and causes them harm.

It is also a reminder that when approaching a child who was impacted by sexually exploitive behavior, we must let the child tell their own story. It is a reminder that overreacting can make a neutral situation traumatic for the child, and to respect the child enough to tell their own story.

Why the emphasis on children?

When it comes to detecting when abuse is occurring, preventing it from happening, and holding perpetrators accountable, the first priority must be the child. While the surrounding community does have feelings about abusive events, the primary impact is to the child. No one should ever presume to tell a child how to feel, only help the child work through how they feel and what they think. It is extremely common for children who have been abused to care for and trust their abuser. The child has a right to feel that way, just as they have a right to hate their abuser. Without that sort of emphasis on children, it is possible to dictate how the child feels and make the impact and effects of the abuse worse than they initially were. Magnifying the effects of child sexual abuse is obviously not something to be striving for, and that is why an emphasis on children must take priority. Without it, primary prevention cannot happen.

Final thoughts...

I know there are some people out there who might twist my argument here to mean that sexual acts with children are acceptable if the child is not harmed, and I must be clear that just because there are children who are not harmed does not make the behavior on the part of the older youth or adult acceptable or moral. The high potential for harm makes the act immoral and unacceptable, every time. Just because even 15/100 cases do not result in harm does not make the behavior itself okay. Another issue is that child sexual abuse does not always result in readily apparent harm. Sometimes, it can take years for someone to realize they were in fact traumatized.

My own abuse was exactly like that: It affected how I saw myself and the world around me. It was not until I began talking about my past that I came to a more realistic understanding of what happened to me, where previously I saw it as normal. I felt shamed for the normal experiences because I did not believe I had the right to enjoy them. But I felt that the abusive experiences were normal for no other reason than that they happened to me. And how I felt about everything was a garbled mess because I had no idea how to properly feel or identify my emotions.

While it is possible that children involved in sexual acts with older youth or adults will not be traumatized or harmed does not make the behavior acceptable. Just because a handful of alcoholics are able to recover to the point of being able to drink socially with no problems does not mean that all alcoholics will get to that point.