Childhood Sexual Abuse

Words: 815
Pages: 4

Childhood sexual abuse is always and will always be a subject that triggers great emotion from people no matter how far they try to emotionally distance themselves from the subject. No one wants to think of someone perceived as weak and innocent being taken advantage of. Sex is also a very sensitive subject in most countries, being seen as an evil in many circumstances. Because of this way of thinking about sex it makes people react even more emotionally to childhood sexual abuse. The articles read for this assignment showed two different views on childhood sexual abuse. Rind et. al. (1998) stated that childhood sexual abuse was not as severe an issue as the population thinks it is and should potentially not be labeled abuse at all. They found …show more content…
al. 1998 study. Both Ondersma et. al. (2001) and Dallam et. al. (2001) pointed out statistical errors and lack of a proper definition for childhood sexual abuse. These authors were in support of the socially acceptable view that child sexual abuse is abuse and causes harm to the child and their coping skills. I agree that a college population may not have been the best to research. As mentioned by Dallam et. al. (2001), college students tend to be young and well-functioning. This does not equate the entire population of those who have experienced childhood sexual abused. What about older people or people from a lower socioeconomic status who could not afford college? There is much of the general population not taken into concern with the type of population chosen for Rind et. al.’s 1998 study on childhood sexual abuse. This could lead to results that are not as accurate as they would be with a more diverse …show more content…
When a subject as sensitive as childhood sexual abuse is shown in a study to not correlate with the dominant idea on the matter, it will be meticulously dissected for flaws and shortcomings. Each article presented good arguments that tried to disprove the other. I feel as though instead of defending their article Rind et. al. should have done another study. They could have taken the perceived issues into concern to create a more reliant study to help reduce skepticism. I believe the articles against Rind et. al.’s 1998 study were made with intent to point out shortcoming and held legitimate scientific