Need Some Advice-Working With Children *May trigger*

Good luck - I hope you get the job you want!

AnonymousAndy wrote:What do we care more about, the pedophile's feelings or kid's?

Of course it's not inevitable that a pedophile will touch a kid, but for kids' sake I just feel we shouldn't test fate, you know? Kids are more important than my hurt ego.

You are implying that if a pedophile were to "touch a kid," the kid is somehow likely to be damaged. This is a view not based upon empirical evidence. In fact, scientific evidence is to the contrary.

In the definitive study of child sex abuse published in 1998 by the American Psychological Association, in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive.

Thus, the big concern about "touching a kid" is not so much its effect on them but its effect on you, namely that you might end up in prison for a long time. And for the child, having to go through a legal process and be interrogated by cops and social workers and therapized is more likely to traumatize him than getting his weenie tickled.

Shrink Rap wrote:

AnonymousAndy wrote:And for the child, having to go through a legal process and be interrogated by cops and social workers and therapized is more likely to traumatize him than getting his weenie tickled.

I have a hunch that much of the damage is caused after the fact by hysteria in society. Incessant messages to the effect that one has been subjected to the most heinous of crimes at the hand of a sadistic monster are hardly conducive to healing. That said, I applaud Andy's caution. It would be interesting to hear more on these studies; more to the point, it would be interesting for society to hear more about these studies. Anything that calms down the angry mob and makes them more rational.

Shrink Rap wrote:

AnonymousAndy wrote:In the definitive study of child sex abuse published in 1998 by the American Psychological Association, in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive.

Rind et al, right? I mean, I know there's no neutral ground on this, but I don't think that's a "definitive study on child sex abuse" so much as a widely disregarded meta-analysis. The prevailing scientific discourse rather emphatically does not endorse its conclusions.

Borgesius wrote:

Shrink Rap wrote:

AnonymousAndy wrote:In the definitive study of child sex abuse published in 1998 by the American Psychological Association, in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive.

Rind et al, right? I mean, I know there's no neutral ground on this, but I don't think that's a "definitive study on child sex abuse" so much as a widely disregarded meta-analysis. The prevailing scientific discourse rather emphatically does not endorse its conclusions.

I am not sure to what you are referring here. And why is there no neutral ground? Do you have any evidence that Rind et al were biased?

Rind's meta-analysis was definitive because it collated results of every study extant in the literature up to that time which met criteria for inclusion. Meta-analysis is one of the strongest tools in science. Criticisms of the meta-analysis have been roundly refuted. Furthermore, its results have been confirmed:
A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
by Heather Ulrich, Mickey Randolph, and Shawn Acheson
Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Fall 2005

If you have "scientific discourse" that can "prevail" over a methodologically sound, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, by all means post it. Otherwise, the contention will remain that Rind et al is the unrefuted standard in the academic literature.

Just a word of caution Shrink Rap - your previous post could be interpreted as an argument that molesting a child has a neutral to positive effect on the child. Using phrases like "touching a kid" or 'weenie tickling' could be seen as making light of a crime many consider very serious. Please be mindful that people with a broad range of views and experiences may read this thread. It may be safer to be more direct with your language so that you cannot be misunderstood.

Reading threads on this very forum by people who were sexually abused when they were children, it seems clear that children can be harmed by inappropriate or unwelcome touch, and the experience can be far from positive.

Platypus wrote:Reading threads on this very forum by people who were sexually abused when they were children, it seems clear that children can be harmed by inappropriate or unwelcome touch, and the experience can be far from positive.

No one is denying there can be negative outcomes. Rind et al found that in a minority of cases there were. Looking further into it, it turns out that the negative cases involved force, unwillingness, or coercion.

...or/as well as the way the 'victims' were encouraged to perceive the experience after the fact, surely?

I find the notion of sexual abuse having any positive consequences extremely hard to swallow.

To the OP, please find another line of work. You can get pizza delivery jobs pretty much guaranteed in most places, they have a high turnover rate and are always looking for workers. Anything's better than surrounding yourself with children for forty hours a week, both for their sake and yours.

Divinorum wrote:I find the notion of sexual abuse having any positive consequences extremely hard to swallow.

So do I, to be perfectly honest. But I think it's important we be careful not to assume how we feel about something being a fact alters its truth status. (Not that I'm saying you'd do this, Divinorum.)