>>17845253
>The Rind study's arguments of confounding being sufficient enough to reclassify contact as not abusive in certain cases were insufficient in the reproduction
This has nothing to do with the results of his study. His study has been replicated twice, and both replications supported his results.

>you haven't explained why either Dallam or Ondersma's conclusions were faulty
Because Rind's study was independently replicated, taking into account their criticisms, with the authors of the replication concluding:
>The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population.

>Familial dysfunction is increasingly becoming an explanatory variable for the occurrence of CSA in more modern research
Which does not preclude family dysfunction from being a confounder, despite you claiming this various times throughout the thread for some odd reason.

>as shown in this study
You haven't read this study, you're just spamming more links once again to pretend that these studies support your arguments.

>on what basis do you assume these studies were conducted with poor methodology?
Read >>17842527

>>17845257
>offered evidence to refute claim
>erm you have a micropenis!!!
The absolute state of antis.