Mary wrote:Lemmie, I read the article too. It isn't the only opinion out there and it supports and accepts the notion that Ritualized Sexual Abuse is rare.
Ok, it would be interesting to see those other opinions you are referring to, can you post them, please?
mary wrote:There are some factors that make Utah unique imho.
The most salient is the high religiosity of many Utahns. And the background of their Mormon faith. That would include polygamous notions theologically and also the doctrine of man becoming God. Notions of theosis and patriarchy and the once common LDS belief that God had sex with his own young virgin daughter could easily be turned and perverted into something at the extreme end of sinister, as could the then current temple rituals.
Interesting, do you have any documentation that supports your opinion? Because according to the researchers I quoted, they are unaware of that:
Any documentation you have for your opinion would be interesting.The problem with the inclusion of these types of cases into studies of disclosure patterns is that there is no evidence to support the once popular belief that ritualistic sexual abuse is common (see Nathan & Snedekor, 1995, for examples)
mary wrote:Here's more salient sections from the same article."First, in 1990, Snow and Sorensen(1990) published an article entitled “Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting,” in which ritualistic abuse was defined as repetitive, bizarre sexual, physical, and psychological abuse of children that included supernatural themes and/or religious activities."
Definitions are important, and defining what can and can't be categorised under ritual abuse will effect numbers together with the distinct beliefs and religiosity of the population.
Agreed. Definitions are important.
I think you are missing the point of the statistics provided. They were using them to note this:mary wrote:Of the 575 cases of alleged child abuse in which the authors served as therapists and/or evaluators between 1985 and 1988, 52 were identified as ritualistic child abuse. Of the 52 children, 39 were allegedly abused in a neighborhood setting. In a number of these cases, the children were first brought in for therapy because of allegations of ritualistic abuse by a nonfamily member;
Statistically, that means less than 10% included a ritualized element under the authors definition. If only 39 were abused in a neighbourhood setting then that brings down the percentage occurrence further.
So, of the cases that Snow dealt with ritualized elements were statistically uncommon when compared to the sample size of 575.
Those were my thoughts when reading the article, anyway.
There is a high probability that a number of the children classified as ritually abused were included in Sorensen and Snow’s (1991) study, which sampled the same but slightly smaller population that was described in their 1990 study. In addition, because the accused in their neighborhood cases either made pleas or were convicted, these cases met criteria for substantiated cases of abuse.
The problem with the inclusion of these types of cases into studies of disclosure patterns is that there is no evidence to support the once popular belief that ritualistic sexual abuse is common (see Nathan & Snedekor, 1995, for examples).
As far as percentages of ritual abuse go, the relevant statistic is not the percentage of Snow's cases, but rather that Snow's cases represent an inordinate amount of the claimed cases:
Furthermore, it appears that the large proportion of reported cases of ritualistic abuse can be accounted for by the practices of a small minority of clinicians (Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996; Lanning, 1991).
mary wrote:We also are told that the Carstensen children revealed their alleged abuse by the father and the Miles to their mother, not the therapist.
Told by who?
ETA: I see cinepro addressed this.