Clancy argues how the trauma model discounts the realities of child sexual abuse: that the abuse is rarely committed by someone outside of the inner social circle of family, friends, or community figures; that the abuse is often nonviolent; negative feelings regarding the abuse arise when the victim is able to reconceptualize them as a betrayal enacted through sex and objectification.

The painting of sexual abuse in broad strokes as a violent act committed by mythical boogie men, the author argues, stigmatizes the victims' search for help because we as a culture can't comprehend sexual abuse outside of the popular script that is perpetuated by media as something tangibly horrific. The nuance of sexual abuse as insidious manipulation are hardly understood by the families or friends of victims let alone the culture at large, and it is there that victim blaming and internalized misogyny materialize. ( )

Why is the experience of [child] sexual abuse, as described by victims, so different from how professionals portray and communicate it to the larger population?

This is a psychologist’s book-length defense of her journal article that enraged some stakeholders in the child sexual abuse community.

In summary, her research suggests that the majority of child sexual abuse is primarily experienced in the moment as confusing to the child, while a minority is experienced as violent and frightening. She argues that the trauma develops later, when the grown-up victims finally know enough to make “meaning of the experience [...make] sense of what happened and how these understandings make them feel about themselves and others.” She further argues that, while considering all abuse as violent and traumatic did garner political and social attention to the crimes, it’s no longer making progress to end the abuse because it doesn’t turn attention to the majority of abuses -- those committed quietly by family members and trusted friends. ( )