Relational and Sexual Experiences of Betrayal From the Point of View of Sexually Victimized Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, it is estimated that one in five women have reported being sexually victimized before the age of 18. Girls are particularly at risk of sexual abuse at the end of adolescence and are more vulnerable to revictimization during this period. However, there is a paucity of findings related to the relational and sexual impacts of child sexual abuse among young women. The traumagenic dynamics model, proposed by Finkelhor and Browne, postulates that the consequences of sexual abuse can be analyzed in light of four distinct dynamics: traumatic sexualization, betrayal, powerlessness, and stigmatization. Among the four postulated dynamics, betrayal appears to be a key element to gain insight on the relational challenges experienced by victims, as betrayal situations can recur in romantic relationships. The present study aimed to describe, from the point of view of young women victims of child sexual abuse, the issues related to betrayals in their relational and sexual experiences. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 young women aged 18 to 25 years old who had reported sexual victimization. Two main conceptual categories emerged from the narratives of the participants: (a) relational situations that echo the betrayal dynamic and (b) strategies to cope with relational situations involving betrayal: protection, reparation, and the use of both strategies, which leads to ambivalence. Findings highlight the importance of addressing the traumagenic dynamic of betrayal in interventions with sexually abuse youths, given their likelihood to experience betrayal in the context of romantic relationships and their increased risk of revictimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".