I believe that the researches did not consider the implications that this article could have on the victims such as the belittling of the emotional impact of sexual assault. In fact this controversial article has been used in court cases by defense lawyers attempting to minimize the crime. Groups and organizations are also advocating for age of consent reform in which their goal is to decriminalize sexual activity between adults and minors. This article is helping them do so. That’s why in 1999 the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that sexual relations between an adult and child is abusive and harmful, they condemned the study of the basis that it was being used to promote and justify sexual abuse. This article did not
…show more content…
As opposed to informed consent used in legal contexts. However children are not morally and legally capable to make a decision such as this. In fact, it is almost like we are blaming the child. As an example a computer conversation with a child and adult started in which they started sexting. After they meet the child gets nervous so the adult guilt's them into continuing, calling the child a tease. After the child is scared from the experience this is still child sexual assault. The child is still considered the victim. Now this article comes out and makes the victim feel as though because they were willing, means they consented fully and now it’s their fault. This is wrong because children cannot consent because they do not know what they are getting into and cannot say no. “A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be …show more content…
"These injuries can be caused by friends, family and most often by the professionals victims encounter as a result of the crime. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, social service workers, the media, coroners, clergy, and even mental health professionals can cause secondary injuries." In this case this article concluding that both men and women experiences little to no negative effects after child sexual assault. This to me is telling victims that their experience was not important and that they really shouldn't have any negative thoughts about the encounter. Lets them think that sexual assault is no big deal and if they feel any particular way about it then they're not normal. However, the lasting negative effects tended to effect women more then it does men. We as a society have a expectation when it comes to gender. Men are supposed to be strong emotionally and they are less likely to get abused. We make men or in this case boys feel wrong/embarrassed when it comes to admitting to sexual abuse let along telling us their true feelings. They also concluded in the article that lasting effects are not prevalent and that these effects are only temporary. In my mind they are saying that an abused child will just grow out of their assault almost like it never
As opposed to informed consent used in legal contexts. However children are not morally and legally capable to make a decision such as this. In fact, it is almost like we are blaming the child. As an example a computer conversation with a child and adult started in which they started sexting. After they meet the child gets nervous so the adult guilt's them into continuing, calling the child a tease. After the child is scared from the experience this is still child sexual assault. The child is still considered the victim. Now this article comes out and makes the victim feel as though because they were willing, means they consented fully and now it’s their fault. This is wrong because children cannot consent because they do not know what they are getting into and cannot say no. “A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be …show more content…
"These injuries can be caused by friends, family and most often by the professionals victims encounter as a result of the crime. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, social service workers, the media, coroners, clergy, and even mental health professionals can cause secondary injuries." In this case this article concluding that both men and women experiences little to no negative effects after child sexual assault. This to me is telling victims that their experience was not important and that they really shouldn't have any negative thoughts about the encounter. Lets them think that sexual assault is no big deal and if they feel any particular way about it then they're not normal. However, the lasting negative effects tended to effect women more then it does men. We as a society have a expectation when it comes to gender. Men are supposed to be strong emotionally and they are less likely to get abused. We make men or in this case boys feel wrong/embarrassed when it comes to admitting to sexual abuse let along telling us their true feelings. They also concluded in the article that lasting effects are not prevalent and that these effects are only temporary. In my mind they are saying that an abused child will just grow out of their assault almost like it never