| Revision as of 09:28, 21 September 2021 editOtheranonymousgermany (talk | contribs)1 edit →Incorrect frequency statement "child sexual abuse": new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:34, 16 February 2022 edit undoLegitimus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,216 edits Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 9Next edit → |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
{{archives|index=./Archive index}} |
|
{{archives|index=./Archive index}} |
|
{{Child protection}} |
|
{{Child protection}} |
|
|
|
|
== Link number 195 no longer works. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Title. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect frequency statement "child sexual abuse" == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems there is an error in this article concerning the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“. This article defines „child sexual abuse“ as sexul contacts of „minors“ with persons with a big age difference (typically 5 years or more). In this sentence then is the mistake about the prevalence of this „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference: |
|
|
|
|
|
„A 2009 meta-analysis of 65 studies from 22 countries found a global prevalence of 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males.“ |
|
|
|
|
|
As a source this study is given: |
|
|
|
|
|
„The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis“ |
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of the studies of this meta-analysis counted every forced sexual contact as child sexual abuse. |
|
|
Just one example is this study: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Higher prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among Latino men who have sex with men than non-Latino men who have sex with men: Data from the Urban Men’s Health Study" |
|
|
|
|
|
So sexual abuse of peers was counted in the meta-analys as „child sexual abuse“. |
|
|
|
|
|
According to dark field studies about 70 % of „sexual abuse“ of „children“ is done by peers (age difference <= 5 years). Just one example of such studies: |
|
|
|
|
|
„A comparison of peer and nonpeer exposure to unwanted early sexual experiences among students in South Africa and Belgium“ |
|
|
|
|
|
So from my point of view to give the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference it would be necessary to have a look at scientific studies about the prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a 5 year age difference. I am currently aware of one German study which had the result that from the 16- to 20-year olds 1,8 % were „sexual abused“ with body-contact: |
|
|
|
|
|
Stadler et al. (2012): Repräsentativbefragung Sexueller Missbrauch 2011, KfN Forschungsbericht Nr.118, Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V. (KFN), https://kfn.de/wp-content/uploads/Forschungsberichte/FB_118.pdf, assessed 18-Sep-2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
If anybody is aware of any other relevant studies it would breat if he could give us that information here. It would be good to have some more studies, maybe 4 or 5, wich could show us the real prevalence of „child sexual abuse“ with a 5 year or bigger age difference. Would be a kind of a small meta-analyis, not perfect, but better than nothing. Older studies migh be misleading because sexual contacts of „minors“ with much older persons decreased strongly in the last two decades accoding to studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Without a correction this article counts peer sexual abuse as „child sexual abuse“ with a big age difference which is scientifically clearly wrong from my point of view. |
|
.svg){kind=small}
