Talk:Harm to victims of child abuse from the viewing of the resulting child pornography

From BoyWiki

When you write "The majority wrote, "It is common ground that the victim suffers continuing and grievous harm", it is likely a good idea to indicate that this harm is not scientifically demonstrable. It does not show up on MRI's and no changes in the structure of the brain structure due to this " ongoing grievous harm" has ever been shown in any way. There is no evidence of this ongoing harm doing any psychical damage whatsoever. That it is based on a belief(a mythology of abuse) and not a demonstrable fact. --Etenne (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason they said it was common ground was that even Paroline's lawyers wrote, on page 50 of their brief, "Amy's profound suffering is due in large part to her knowledge that each day, untold numbers of people across the world are viewing and distributing images of her sexual abuse." It sucks when even your own counsel makes stipulations against you. Lysander (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I think it is important to add a narrative that this is based on a myth (in the same way that the myth that viewing porn inevitably leads people to rape and child abuse, which has already been scientifically shown to be untrue) just because these people want to continue to believe in a flat earth, don't make it so. --Etenne (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that statements such as "Harms to victims" should at a minimum be prefaced with "Supposed," "Alleged," "Never empirically validated claims of," etc. Better would be to immediately make clear which of the "child abuse/trauma/victim/etc." myths is being referred to (and subconsciously being reinforced in the mind of the reader by our article repeating the myths) and put a very visible link to information that rebuts those myths. Otherwise, we are simply perpetuating those very same myths! User4 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, shouldn't the Wikipedia article resurrection of Jesus be moved to "Alleged resurrection of Jesus"? Or rape trauma syndrome could be moved to "alleged rape trauma syndrome" since its scientific validity has been criticized? Lysander (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)