English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
Rethinking the Routine Provision of Psychotherapy to Children/Adolescents Labeled “Sexually Abused”;
International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy ;
3(1),
Whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, children labeled sexually abused are routinely offered treatment at considerable financial cost. One result of this is that mental health professionals are being charged with exploiting the problem of child sexual abuse (CSA). Is the routine provision of psychotherapy for children and adolescents labeled sexually abused warranted? In this paper, it is argued that the evidence indicates it is not warranted. Further, its provision is not in the best interests of either the children or mental health professionals. It is argued it is time to rethink the routine provision of psychotherapy to children and adolescents labeled sexually abuse. A number of recommendations are given which follow from the evidence. ...
A finding of guilt or substantiation does not necessarily mean that sexual abuse has in fact occurred. Professionals involved in protecting children will sometimes say that just because a case has not been substantiated does not mean that abuse has not occurred. But the contrary is at least equally true. ...
The evidence indicates that the impact of CSA has been greatly exaggerated ...
The widespread belief that CSA necessarily and usually causes psychological damage is a myth. ...
Not all sexual encounters between a child and an adolescent or an adult or between an adolescent and adult are abusive ...
Cognitive Attachment Therapy, was identified as having a substantial risk. It carried a significant risk of psychological and physical harm. ...
the evidence does not support the contention that therapy for children and adolescents labeled sexually abused is helpful. It may, in fact, be harmful. ...
The term “abuse” should be replaced by such terms as “experience” or “event,” until it is determined the event was in fact harmful or coercive. ...
The so-called abuse may be experienced positively by the child or adolescent.
Whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, children labeled sexually abused are routinely offered treatment at considerable financial cost. One result of this is that mental health professionals are being charged with exploiting the problem of child sexual abuse (CSA). Is the routine provision of psychotherapy for children and adolescents labeled sexually abused warranted? In this paper, it is argued that the evidence indicates it is not warranted. Further, its provision is not in the best interests of either the children or mental health professionals. It is argued it is time to rethink the routine provision of psychotherapy to children and adolescents labeled sexually abuse. A number of recommendations are given which follow from the evidence. ...
A finding of guilt or substantiation does not necessarily mean that sexual abuse has in fact occurred. Professionals involved in protecting children will sometimes say that just because a case has not been substantiated does not mean that abuse has not occurred. But the contrary is at least equally true. ...
The evidence indicates that the impact of CSA has been greatly exaggerated ...
The widespread belief that CSA necessarily and usually causes psychological damage is a myth. ...
Not all sexual encounters between a child and an adolescent or an adult or between an adolescent and adult are abusive ...
Cognitive Attachment Therapy, was identified as having a substantial risk. It carried a significant risk of psychological and physical harm. ...
the evidence does not support the contention that therapy for children and adolescents labeled sexually abused is helpful. It may, in fact, be harmful. ...
The term “abuse” should be replaced by such terms as “experience” or “event,” until it is determined the event was in fact harmful or coercive. ...
The so-called abuse may be experienced positively by the child or adolescent.
;
The ethics of pedophilia;
Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics ;
9(1), 111-124
Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and that current practices are often counterproductive in this respect.
Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and that current practices are often counterproductive in this respect.
;
Finkelhor's precondition model of child sexual abuse: a critique;
Psygology, Crame & Law;
7, 291 - 307
This paper critically discusses an extremely influential multi-factorial theory of child molestation, Finkelhor’s Precondition Model. This model was one of the first comprehensive theories of the sexual abuse of children and represents a significant achievement. It provides a clear framework for approaching the study of men who have sexually abused children and has lead to both clear treatment goals and clinical innovations. It has rarely, however, been systematically critically examined and the cogency of its core constructs evaluated.
Our analysis suggests that alongside its strengths, Finkelhor’s Precondition Model has some conceptual problems. It suffers from vagueness; contains overlapping constructs; and a rich array of vulnerability factors that require teasing out and clarification.
The model’s attempts to provide a taxonomy highlight the diversity inherent in child sexual abuse, but it has not yet provided a structure to adequately inform treatment.
This paper critically discusses an extremely influential multi-factorial theory of child molestation, Finkelhor’s Precondition Model. This model was one of the first comprehensive theories of the sexual abuse of children and represents a significant achievement. It provides a clear framework for approaching the study of men who have sexually abused children and has lead to both clear treatment goals and clinical innovations. It has rarely, however, been systematically critically examined and the cogency of its core constructs evaluated.
Our analysis suggests that alongside its strengths, Finkelhor’s Precondition Model has some conceptual problems. It suffers from vagueness; contains overlapping constructs; and a rich array of vulnerability factors that require teasing out and clarification.
The model’s attempts to provide a taxonomy highlight the diversity inherent in child sexual abuse, but it has not yet provided a structure to adequately inform treatment.
;
Adult-Child Sex and the Demands of Virtuous Sexual Morality;
Sexuality & Culture;
21(1), 247-269
This article is the continuation of a previous analysis of the usual arguments —
lack of consent, exploitation and harm — used to evaluate sexual experiences
between adults and children from general moral principles. It has been suggested that those arguments were insufficient to condemn all adult-child sexual experiences, and that it would be of interest to study others that come from a specific sexual morality based on a more complex and transcendent conception of human eroticism and sexual conduct.
This paper develops three different arguments against adult-child sex from this perspective, a view which, while not rejecting the Kantian and utilitarian approaches,complements and transforms them with a virtue ethic that questions not only the permissibility of certain acts but also their moral desirability under this frame of reference.
This helps us to clarify the scientific discourse on adult-child sex and directs us to the importance of attending to the educational dimension of this moral problem.
This article is the continuation of a previous analysis of the usual arguments —
lack of consent, exploitation and harm — used to evaluate sexual experiences
between adults and children from general moral principles. It has been suggested that those arguments were insufficient to condemn all adult-child sexual experiences, and that it would be of interest to study others that come from a specific sexual morality based on a more complex and transcendent conception of human eroticism and sexual conduct.
This paper develops three different arguments against adult-child sex from this perspective, a view which, while not rejecting the Kantian and utilitarian approaches,complements and transforms them with a virtue ethic that questions not only the permissibility of certain acts but also their moral desirability under this frame of reference.
This helps us to clarify the scientific discourse on adult-child sex and directs us to the importance of attending to the educational dimension of this moral problem.
;
Zero Tolerance For Six Year Old Predators,
Apr 27 2008
Critic column about a news item that told that a six year young child is branded as a "sex offender".
Critic column about a news item that told that a six year young child is branded as a "sex offender".