Instigator / Pro
9
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Is Child Sexual Abuse Harmful by Itself? V3

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
14
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Description
~ 480 / 5,000

Pro argues that the vast majority of the harm that is correlated with kids having sex with adults stems from the stigma against it and failing to control for other confounding variables.

Con argues against this view.

DEFINITIONS:
Child sexual abuse: A person that is under 18 years old having sex (that they chose to have) with someone that is five or more years older than them.

Note: If you are going to argue with me about definitions if you debate me then do not debate me.

Round 1
Pro
I will only write/copy-paste my most coherent argumentation/empirical evidence this time (that will cut out a lot of my other argumentation/empirical evidence) in the attempt to have a debate that focuses on data/empirical evidence that matters most.

On willingness of children to engage in CSA
People may assume that children cannot consent to sex with adults and that therefore my definition of CSA (given in the description of this debate) is ridiculous. I will dispel this assumption below using verbatim quotes from a national sample study.

Reactions to Minor‑Older and Minor‑Peer Sex as a Function of Personal and Situational Variables in a Finnish Nationally Representative Student Sample
Three samples were merged from Finnish victimization surveys conducted in 1988, 2008, and 2013 and were used in the present analyses. The surveys were funded by the Finnish government. Each sample was nationally representative of Finnish students in the sixth and ninth grades, obtained through stratified cluster sampling based on county, type of municipality, and school size. The response rates in 1988, 2008, and 2013 were, respectively, 96%, 88%, and 75%, yielding 32,145 participants in the pooled sample, with sample sizes in the three time periods being, respectively, 7322, 13,459, and 11,364. Participants in the first survey answered questions via paper and pencil in a room alone, while participants in the second two surveys answered in classrooms on computers by accessing a website [with one or more teachers in the classroom and with other students in the classroom.]. . . .

They were also asked whether their partner used coercion: “Did the other person coerce, threaten or blackmail you to get you involved,” (no or yes). . . . Contrary to characterizations commonly conveyed popularly or in the professional literature, often based on anecdotes or clinical-forensic cases, these incidents infrequently involved overt coercion (12%). [This is similar to the percentage of unwilling CSA victims in Clancy's sample (she is the author of The Trauma Myth) which is about 10%.]

On correlational CSA data
Correlational CSA data is when conductors of studies on CSA 1) measure phycological correlates (ex depresssion, anxiety, etc.) in general without asking whether they are related to the sexual abuse in any way shape or form, 2) see if the particpants in their sample who experienced CSA have worse off phycological correlates (ex more depression and more anxiety) than the control group that is made up of people who have not experienced CSA, 3) find a correlation, 4) either mention that their are confounding variables that could be causing the harm that is correlated with the CSA rather than the CSA itself or do not mention this and assume that correlation equals causation. The latter is widely regarded as a mistake amoung scientists but apparently CSA victimologists don't realize this or whatever. The problem with correlational research is that there is an empirically demonstrated presence and theoretical presence of many confounding variables. These confounding variables make it impossible for harm to be inffered as being caused by CSA unless they are controlled for. Below I will detail these confounding variables.

Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P. (1997). A meta‐analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse. Journal of Sex Research, 34(3), 237–255.
Laumann et al. (1994) found that, although SA respondents consistently reported more sexuality-related problems than control respondents, they were also consistently more sexually active and had consistently experienced more diverse types of sex than control respondents. This confounding variable of extent and type of sexual experience renders the difference in adjustment between the SA and control respondents uninterpretable in terms of cause and effect. Laumann et al. argued that greater sexual activity may have subjected SA respondents to more untoward outcomes, which may then have led to poorer adjustment.
The findings from another study using a national sample, not included in the current review because it did not report psychological correlates of CSA and because of its exclusive focus on female respondents, are particularly relevant for interpreting causation in national samples (Ageton, 1985,1988). Ageton reported the results of longitudinal data collected on U.S. respondents aged 11 to 17 at the beginning of the study and found that girls experiencing unwanted sexual contacts differed from those who did not in terms of family, school, and social factors. The family environments of SA girls compared with control girls were characterized by more disruption and instability. SA girls had substantially more involvement with delinquent friends and received more support from these peers for delinquent and antisocial acts. SA girls also displayed far more tolerant attitudes toward delinquent behavior. Compared with controls, SA girls were less well integrated into their families and schools. We computed effect sizes for these measures for the last year for which data were taken to obtain estimates of the magnitude of confounding between CSA and social environment. Effect sizes ranged from small-medium to large. Some examples were these: disruptive events in home (r = .21), school-related delinquency (r = .30), exposure to delinquent peers (r = .48), support from delinquent peers for deviance (r = .30), delinquent behavior (r = .30), peer pressure for drinking and drugs (r = .47), attitudes toward deviance (r = .28), and nonsexual victimization (r = .34). These results suggest that the small differences in adjustment between CSA and control respondents observed in other national samples may be attributable to larger differences in social environment, rather than to the CSA. . . .
Briere, J., & Elliott, D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27 , 1205-22. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213403001856?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.008
Overlapping abuse histories. Cross-tabulation of subjects’ physical and sexual abuse histories indicated that individuals with one form of abuse were statistically more likely to have experienced the other as well (χ2(1) = 23.2, p<.001). In this regard, of all subjects with some form of child abuse history (n = 345), 72 (20.9%) had experienced both physical and sexual abuse.
Whiffen, V. E., & MacIntosh, H. B. (2005). Mediators of the Link between Childhood Sexual Abuse and Emotional Distress. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(1), 24–39. doi:10.1177/1524838004272543
Family context in which CSA typically occurs has been characterized as disorganized, conflicted, inflexible, violent, and strained by parental mental illness (Fromuth, 1986; Harter et al., 1988).
Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P. (1997). A meta‐analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse. Journal of Sex Research, 34(3), 237–255.
To address the issue of whether CSA was the result or cause of negative social factors, Ageton (1988) analyzed the longitudinal data prospectively. She investigated whether any social factors measured in earlier years of the study were predictive of CSAthat occurred in later years of the study and found that a number of factors were predictive. We computed effect sizes for the significant predictors, averaged them over the two years reported for each predictor, and obtained the following: family normlessness (r = .18), school normlessness (r = .15), peer support for delinquent behavior (r = .22), exposure to delinquent peers (r = .25), and attitudes toward deviance (r = .22). These results, with effect sizes of small to medium magnitude, imply that negative social factors predispose children and adolescents to CSA, rather than the reverse. These results are consistent with the possibility that negative social factors lead to poorer adjustment and to CSA and that the relation between CSA and adjustment in the general population is either spurious or of lower magnitude than we estimated.
Boney-McCoy, S., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Is youth victimization related to trauma symptoms and depression after controlling for prior symptoms and family relationships? A longitudinal, prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1406–1416.
In a review of the medical records of children treated at a hospital in the aftermath of sexual abuse, Paradise et al. (1994) found that victimized children were more likely to have been seen by a psychiatrist (for reasons unrelated to the abuse) before that hospital visit than were children admitted to the hospital for nonabuse-related causes. These data suggest that the abused children may have been symptomatic at the time of the abuse, and raises the possibility that symptomatology may contribute to victimization.
Whiffen, V. E., & MacIntosh, H. B. (2005). Mediators of the Link between Childhood Sexual Abuse and Emotional Distress. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(1), 24–39. doi:10.1177/1524838004272543
It is not at all clear that CSA precedes family dysfunction; in fact, the empirical evi- dence suggests that the reverse is true: that chil- dren from problematic families are at risk for CSA (Finkelhor & Baron, 1986; Mian, Marton, LeBaron, & Birtwistle, 1994; Rowland, Zabin, & Emerson, 2000).

[Again, these confounding variables make it impossible for harm to be inferred as being caused by CSA unless they are controlled for. They are also complex and (I imagine) therefore extremely difficult to adequately control for. Additionally other confounding variables can be theorized. Perhaps people who experience CSA have less wealth than non-CSA controls on average since they poorer people around them are more desperate for sexual contact and have sex with children more than more wealthy people who get easier access to women to satisfy their sexual urges because of their higher wealth. Also, perhaps kids in poorer areas are more willing to engage in sex with adults for lack of something better to do (the way that they see it). Having less wealth as a child could lead to them having less wealth than non-CSA controls in their futures since it is a lot easier (especially in systems with the private ownership of the means of production) to make more money when you already have more money to begin with as it is easier to start businesses, invest in real estate, invest in the stock market, invest in costly college education (costly if you live in the US), ect. Again, these complex confounding variables seem extremely difficult to control for.]

<--> The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children (Book)
Wylted said: "I am watching interviews with the writer of the "Trauma Myth" and she thinks that child sexual abuse is very harmful. If I limited my response to Susan Clancy quotes it would be enough to win this debate. She is concerned about the myths of how sexual abuse effects victims prevents victims from being recognized and coming forward."

[My response: What Clancy thinks about how child sexual abuse is is more nuanced than that. You're not wrong that she says that she thinks that child sexual abuse is very harmful. However, she does not necessarily say and/or imply that she thinks that child sexual abuse is harmful by itself. When she says that it is very harmful she might mean that it is harmful in our current society because of confounding variables that are tied to sexual abuse in the current state of our society. She also could be lying and intentionally implying that sexual abuse is harmful by itself to avoid irreparable damage to her career because the victims from her sample tell a different story. I'll use Clancy's own verbatim words from her book called The Trauma Myth to make this argument:]
"In my study—no differently from other research— the exact amount of time it took for victims to reconceptualize what had happened to them varied. It depended on the individual victims, on how old they were when abused, what educational and life experiences had taught them about sex, and what kinds of cues had triggered their thinking about what had happened and recognizing it as abuse. Victims described the point of realization in different ways: “A light went on.” “It was like, aha!” “I said, ‘Oh my God.’” For more than a few it was “like a bomb went off. . . . Holy shit! I was abused!” For many, the realization was a “long, drawn-out process” that slowly built up to a new perception of the abuse. One thing did not vary: only at this point—when victims understood the abuse as such, once they had reconceptualized these formerly ambiguous and confusing events—did the experience become psychologically traumatic and begin to exert its negative effects. . . . It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact . . . . there is almost always a period in which the victim reports a lack of awareness that they were abused and then subsequently reconceptualizes the experience . . . ."

"As I discussed at length in chapter 2, according to victims, they did not experience the abuse as awful when it happened because most simply did not understand clearly the meaning or significance of the sexual behaviors they were engaging in. That being said, at some point later on in life, they do. Over time, the “cloak of innocence lifted,” as one victim described it. Victims reconceptualized the formerly “confusing and weird experiences” and understood them for what they were—sexual in nature and clearly wrong. Only at this point—when the sexual abuse is fully apprehended— does it begin to damage victims. . . ."

[In summary, the CSA victims from her sample (or at least the vast majority of the CSA victims from her sample) said that they were not mentally or physically harmed by sexual abuse at the moment when it was happening to them but after (and often long after) the sexual abuse happened and they reconceptualized the sexual abuse and that lead to the betrayal and feeling not cared for and other mental harms. Keep in mind that this is the victims themselves saying this. It is not anyone's opinion.]

[Clancy and I (and the CSA victims in her sample) agree that the reconceptualization of the sexual abuse is what causes the harm to children who have been sexually abused. However, in The Trauma Myth Clancy has never directly said what she thinks causes the reconceptualization. Though according to a verbatim quote of hers she has possibly indirectly implied that the reconceptualization of the CSA (which is what harms victims of CSA) is caused by culture (I'm not going to attempt to find that quote). My belief, what my intuition strongly tells me, and what makes since based on evolution is that the reconceptualization of the child-adult sex that causes the harm to victims of CSA is caused by societies strong and almost universal stigma against child-adult sex. This stigma manifests itself in the form of people saying that adult-child sex is harmful to children and so on. Why would humans evolved to be damaged by something only after the fact if that something caused the damage? Pain is a part of us that the human body evolved to make humans stop doing certain things. However, these children "consented" and went along with the child-adult sex. If the child-adult sex caused children pain then wouldn't that pain be caused right when its happening? How else would pain result from adult-child sex that would make sense from a perspective of natural selection?]

[In addition, I will add the following verbatim quotes from The Trauma Myth (book) to the argument to make the argument more clear:]
The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children
"If you experience psychological distress after sexual abuse, then the sexual abuse must be the cause[, right?]. But it is not actually that simple. What, specifically, about the abuse has triggered the distress? Does it have to do with objective characteristics of the abuse (for example, how many times it happened or whether penetration was involved)? Does it have to do with subjective characteristics about the abuse (how painful, frightening, or shocking it was)? Perhaps it has less to do with the actual abuse and more to do with, say, the particular child (how old he or she was and how genetically predisposed to long-term psychological problems) or the environment. the abuse occurred in (one characterized by poverty, physical abuse, or neglect). Maybe it has to do with the cognitive or social consequences of the abuse (how the victim’s family or health professionals handled it or how the victim understood or conceptualized it later on in life). There are numerous ways to understand how and why sexual abuse damages victims. [In other words there are many different theories that claim to know why when a child has sex with an adult the child is harmed in the short term or in the long term.] For decades, however, the main focus has centered on one—the incident itself. . . .
Lucy Berliner and Jon Conte in their 1990 study noted that a majority of the children they interviewed reported not knowing initially that they were being sexually abused. Berliner and Conte quoted victims as saying such things as . . . . “I didn’t know there was any- thing wrong with it, because I didn’t know it was abuse until later. I thought he was showing me affection.”10
More recently, two cognitive psychologists, Michelle Epstein and Bette Bottoms, specifically hypothesized that due to the confusing and secretive nature of the abuse, many victims may fail to understand the meaning of the sexual acts committed (and subsequently forget them for periods), but then, at a later point, come to “relabel” the experiences as “traumatic.”11
In my study—no differently from other research— the exact amount of time it took for victims to reconceptualize what had happened to them varied. It depended on the individual victims, on how old they were when abused, what educational and life experiences had taught them about sex, and what kinds of cues had triggered their thinking about what had happened and recognizing it as abuse. Victims described the point of realization in different ways: “A light went on.” “It was like, aha!” “I said, ‘Oh my God.’” For more than a few it was “like a bomb went off. . . . Holy shit! I was abused!” For many, the realization was a “long, drawn-out process” that slowly built up to a new perception of the abuse. One thing did not vary: only at this point—when victims understood the abuse as such, once they had reconceptualized these formerly ambiguous and confusing events—did the experience become psychologically traumatic and begin to exert its negative effects. . . . It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact . . . . there is almost always a period in which the victim reports a lack of awareness that they were abused and then subsequently reconceptualizes the experience . . . ."

<--> McNally, Richard J., and Geraerts, Elke (2009). "A New Solution to the Recovered Memory Debate," Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126-134.
"Only 2 of 27 subjects remembered the experience as terrifying, overwhelming, or traumatic. The other subjects remembered it as weird, confusing, or uncomfortable. Moreover, only 2 subjects understood the experience as sexual at the time it occurred. [...] However, after recalling their experience during adulthood, and viewing it through the eyes of an adult as sexual abuse, many subjects became highly distressed. In fact, 7 met symptomatic criteria for current PTSD, and all the participants believed that the abuse had multiple adverse effects on their lives. Retrospective reappraisal of the abuse as a trauma, after subjects recall it during adulthood, may render the memory pathogenic later in life."

[If these two studies are accurate then we would expect that studies from a time and place when and where there was no stigma would appear to show that there was no harm from child-adult sex in the studies sample(s). It turns out there is a quality study on CSA that was conducted when CSA was stigmatized far less than it is today (although it arguably was still significantly stigmatized). It was conducted by Alfred Kinsey who was arguably one of the most famous sex researchers of his time. Bruce Rind did an analysis of this study which will be verbatim quoted below. But first I will detail the history of the conceptualization of CSA by verbatim quoting the trauma myth.]

The trauma myth: the truth about the sexual abuse of children
The trauma conceptualization of child sexual abuse (meaning the traumano-genic model of child-sexual abuse) emerged in the early 1980s. What professional theories and approaches to child sexual abuse had existed before then? Having come of age during a time when most professionals in the mental health field acknowledged that sexual abuse is a common and harmful form of victimization, I was shocked by what I found in the historical literature lead- ing up to this point. For most of the twentieth century, many mental health professionals believed otherwise.
Although some health professionals acknowledged that sexual abuse existed and was perhaps more common than many thought, they were quick to dismiss the cases as harmless to the victims . . . . because . . . . victims reported that force or violence were rarely involved and that it was rare for any medically significant physical trauma to occur. As John Gagnon, one of the foremost experts, put it in 1965, “The bulk of sexual abuse cases will be minimal in character. . . . The amount of damage—if any, is limited.”13 A text coauthored by C. Henry Kempe, a world-renowned child abuse expert, argued in 1978 that “most sexual molestation appears to do little harm to normal chil- dren.”14 The consensus among most professionals was that the majority of these offenses were essentially “nuisance experiences” and rarely involved the use or threat of physical force.15 As the scholar Philip Jenkins puts it, “The perception of child molestation was as innocuous as the modern image is threatening.”16

[In short, this changed in the 1980s - 1990s. From then on CSA was seen as harmful and the harm that it is thought to cause to kids has increased to its extreme stigma today. Now, onto the Kinsey data (analyzed by Bruce Rind). The following quotes are verbatim quotes as always.]

Enjoyment and Emotionally Negative Reactions in Minor–Adult Versus Minor–Peer and Adult–Adult First Postpubescent Coitus: A Secondary Analysis of the Kinsey Data

Definitions of CSA
Using the original Kinsey sample, enjoyment and emotionally negative reactions to first postpubescent coitus were examined in relation to whether the coitus occurred as a legal minor (aged under 18) with an adult (5 or more years older), a minor with a peer (within 4 years of age), or an adult with an adult (both 18 or older). . . . In addition to these three main divisions, we subdivided the minor–adult and adult–adult categories into 5 subcategories, as follows: (1) Minor (14 and under)–adult: participant was 14 or under and partner was at least 5 years older7 ; (2) Minor (15–17)–adult: participant was 15–17 and partner was at least 5 years older; (3) Adult–younger adult: both participant and partner were adults (at least 18) and participant was at least 5 years older than partner; (4) Adult–peer adult: both participant and partner were adults (at least 18), and partner was within 4 years of participant’s age; (5) Adult–older adult: both participant and partner were adults (at least 18), and participant was at least 5 years younger than partner. . . .
[This studies sample] consisted of 6,621 males and 6,337 females who were interviewed between 1938 and 1953. . . . For males and females combined, the numbers in the minor– peer, minor–adult, and adult–adult categories were, respectively, ns=1,560, 834, and 5,444. An additional 4,318 participants had had no first coitus and were not analyzed in the present study. . . .
The data were collected in face-to-face interviews conducted by researchers from multiple scientific disciplines, who were trained to elicit sexual histories, regardless of their nature, nonjudgmentally. . . .
Questionaire: Reasons for enjoying it
Participants, who had had coitus, were asked whether they enjoyed their first coitus, with these response options: 1 = no; 2 = little; 3 = some; 4 = much. . . .
Quetionaire: Reasons for not enjoying it
Participants were also asked the main reason for why they did not enjoy their first coitus, if they had any such reasons. For males, 35 specific reasons were coded (Albright, 2006, pp. 99–100) and, for females, the number was 37 (Albright, 2006, p. 90). Reasons included problems that the participant or partner may have had, such as incompetence (e.g., male impotent), physical (e.g., painful), psychological (e.g., disgusted), and alcohol (e.g., male drunk). . . .
Participants were coded as not enjoying their first coitus for emotionally negative reasons if they endorsed, or the interviewer recorded, any one of the following options: (1) painful and embarrassed (frightened, scared, upset, nervous, uneasy, shocked); (2) painful and shame (guilt, regret); (3) embarrassed (frightened, scared, upset, nervous, uneasy, shocked);(4)disgusted (revolted, offended);(5)moral (inhibited, conflict); or (6)shame (regret, guilt).4 For females, one additional option was: pain plus moral(inhibit, conflict). If any of these applied, a participant was given a ‘‘1’’ for emotionally negative reactions, otherwise a‘‘0.’’. . . . 4 Thewordingforseveralitemsdifferedinminorwaysinpresentationto male versus female participants. For male participants,‘‘emotional’’was added to the list of descriptors for painful and embarrassed and for embarrassed; ‘‘annoyed’’ was added to the list of descriptors for disgusted; and‘‘conscience’’was added to the list of descriptors for moral. . . .
Age difference
Notably, in the minor–adult groups, the chief focus here, the mean age of first postpubescent coitus for boys was 15.56 (SD = 1.41), the mean age of their female partners was 24.99 (SD = 3.38), and the mean age difference was 9.44 years (SD = 3.51). The mean age for girls with men was 15.51 (SD = 1.49), the mean age of their male partners was 26.36 (SD = 6.76), and the mean age difference was 10.85 years (SD = 6.83).
[One could access the tables in the above study by copy-pasting the studies DOI (find it online by looking up the title of the study) into sci-hub.se (probably illegal so this is for education purposes only), pressing enter, and seeing the tables. Way too tired to write out or verbatim quote or whatever all of that information right now. Otherwise just trust me when I say that the <14 group who had sex with adults (CSA) experienced just as much pleasure as the adult-adult group (for both genders) and the <14 group had just as much negative emotions about the sex as the adult-adult group.]

[In conclusion, the Kinsey data very much supports the notion that CSA is not harmful by itself without stigma against CSA being present. The CSA was no more harmful than adult-adult sex - and just as pleasurable. It is hard to imagine that sex that was equivalent to adult-adult sex in terms of harm and pleasure at the time that it happened is anymore harmful than adult-adult sex later on in the lives of victims without some factor such as stigma against adult-child sex and the nocebo effect, causing people (often later on in their lives) to be harmed by the CSA. Obviously, in our society now there is a mountainous stigma against CSA so don't f*@k kids.]

Con
I suppose we both can just pick and select studies and data to support our individual sides.

Then what?

For instance, you'll no doubt find information about how child sexual abuse, molestation, statutory rape is harmful alone without social reaction.

Many of these cases point out the psychological, emotional harm.

If you were to search "5 ways people justify adults having sex with minors" , it just be one source of information against another.

Now it's no wonder you're primarily sticking to the information regarding Kinsey.

It says the things that I suppose backs you up .

So which source is valid or overrules the other?

Who says which one can do that to the other?

Now I take the position which is non-bias to look over any piece of information relevant.

Then I ask questions to find consistency with all the research.

So after all the data you can offer , here's the bottom line.

"In conclusion, the Kinsey data very much supports the notion that CSA is not harmful by itself without stigma against CSA being present."

Now I'm trying to correlate this with your beginning statement below.

"Pro argues that the vast majority of the harm that is correlated with kids having sex with adults stems from the stigma against it and failing to control for other confounding variables."

Help me understand because I intend no misrepresentation.

Upon reading this, I'm understanding that what causes harm for the most part is from societal reaction. The second part of that, you may have to unpack a little more.

In your conclusion you indicate information that explains societal reaction is not the only cause of harm .

Well I agree. That's why I said we can find a lot of information speaking of all these different things in contribution.

But you initially said for the most part, the harm is from one single thing. Again the second part to that is convoluted to line it up.





Round 2
Pro
You've gotta do better than that... You havn't disproved any of my points/empirical evidence. You have just begged the question that there might be valid counter points to my points.
Con
In order for you to prove your point, you have to demonstrate consistency.

Since you mentioned a begging of a question, I will put forth this question.

Is your position that in most cases, harm involving child sexual abuse is from societal reaction, societal demonization, societal stigmatization?

Then you add what appears to be a non sequitur .

You provide data and make the statement about it indicating that harm involving child sexual abuse is not from societal response ALONE . 

In most cases or in general according to your supposed position, that would mean one thing counting as harm alone.

So clean up this mess of information and answer that question please.
Round 3
Pro
Yes, emotional harm can be caused by sex. I think that's obvious enough. I didn't mean to say that no emotional harm is caused by sex in general irrespective of stigma against it. But, in terms of CSA, that small amount of harm is nothing compared to the harm that the stigma against CSA appears to cause. I should have changed the description of this debate to: Pro argues that child sexual abuse, by itself without confounding variables such as stigma against CSA, is not over [let's say for the sake of leeway] 20% more harmful than adult-adult sex.
Con
So correct if this is incorrect. 
In other words, your position is in most cases or in general the harm involved comes from stigmatization.

Although you didn't phrase it this way, the Kinsey study agrees. Is that right?
See because from what you stated, it indicated that the study indicated not stigmatization by itself. Which would mean definitely not in general because your position is in general, just stigmatization.

Ok, how much does that study take into account?
A study or survey can only take in so much, can only survey and take census of available cases and reports.
At most you can say and be valid about it,is that stigmatization is the common cause according to.

But not absolutely and I know with the law of the land to back me up, we're not going to legalize pedophilia based on niche selected studies.

More than likely, the cases that are not taken into account by this study you found are covered with opposing research to contest .
Such as the one I mentioned about the 5 justifications, attempted justifications of course.
Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
I rest my case.
Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
I'll say this about topics like these.
People see these topics and can get an impression.

The impression of trying to indirectly justify something, the start to push an agenda, perhaps to defend certain persons.
The defense of those persons may include the one arguing to put up the defense.

I hold no bias. An argument can probably be made on both sides from selected sources of information.

But the law is very careful. We need sources across the board to agree concerning the dangers and risks before we can permit in general that something be allowed from it not being so due to the jeopardy in safety.

This is why a new product such as something not FDA regulated or a new vaccine is not without questionability or regarded as safe as something that has had thorough (across the board) elaborate testing.

Some may report a few symptoms of a drug, some may have had much fortune. Some cases or some sources are cherry picked by those pushing, defending, wanting, believing in the new drug. A nuanced therapy, treatment, etc. not so instantly received by everyone.

Same is true for opposing cases of a new product.

I just wanted to add this in keeping in mind in light of this entire exchange here .