( CNN ) -- If you are a survivor of sexual abuse who has not yet reported , you may be attending closely to the trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky to see what happens to those who do . The news is both good and bad . You see some courageous men being taken seriously by prosecutors and journalists . But you see a degree of potential exposure that few victims would want to face , and that we could do a better job of preventing . First , the better news : We all know that sexual abuse is still a crime that is mostly unrevealed . But progress has been made . Comparisons of recent surveys to those from the 1980s show far more victims today say they reported or that someone in authority found out . Yet boys are still disproportionately less likely to report , for some of the reasons showcased in this trial : the fear that others will not believe they are really victims , and the fear that they will be stigmatized as wimpy and/or homosexual . So a case such as this with male victims coming forward , explaining how conflicted they felt , why it took them so long , what it did to their lives , but nonetheless giving convincing testimony that has clearly been believed by the prosecutors and much of the press , this certainly must give other boys and men some sense of possibility . Indeed , that this case is being prosecuted at all shows how much has changed . People in law enforcement and the public at large now know that boys do indeed get abused . Thousands of professionals have gotten specialized training in how to identify victims , how talk with them and how not to exacerbate the harm when interviewing . Specialized Child Advocacy Centers exist in more than 600 communities to make the process more child friendly . These trained police and prosecutors do understand why it is so hard to report , why the testimony sometimes changes and how the fact of participating in the sexual activity does n't signify enjoyment or lack of harm . Growing numbers of women in law enforcement have certainly helped . But we still have a long way to go . Jerry Sandusky trial : All you need to know about allegations , how case unraveled . The possibility of your abuse ending up fodder for a national media frenzy that rivals the Super Bowl would hardly seem comforting to most potential disclosers . The possibility of having your lifelong identity become `` that kid who was molested by that coach '' would be terrifying . In that light , perhaps the most discouraging news for survivors in the trial so far was the refusal of the judge to allow the victims to testify anonymously . This ruling would seem callous . Lots of other countries have built in legal protections that prevent the media and other court participants from learning the names of child victims of sexual assault . Even in the United States we have protections against the disclosure of the names of juvenile offenders . The notion behind that is that young people can be permanently stigmatized by such notoriety . Why not victims , too ? True , many news outlets have policies to avoid reporting the names of sexual assault victims . But it is an entirely voluntary policy , proudly flouted by some outlets . Studies have shown that information that could readily identify victims appears in 37 % of news articles that report on child sexual victimization . So far , the names of the Sandusky accusers have not gotten widespread circulation . But they could . What was the judge 's rationale for denying what would seem like such a reasonable request ? `` Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully , '' Judge John Cleland wrote in his order dismissing the request . `` Consequently , there must be justifications of public policy that are very deep and well-rooted to support any measure which interferes with the public 's ability to observe a trial and to make their own judgments about the legitimacy of their legal system and the fairness of its results . '' But there are . An enormous quantity of research shows sex crimes against children to be particularly traumatic , and aspects of the court experience to be a contributor to the trauma . Allowing victims to testify anonymously would not truly undermine the openness crucial to make a judgment about the fairness of the system . The victims still have to testify publicly , still have to be confronted by the defense , still have their credibility tested in the eyes of the jury and the media . Perhaps the judge was afraid of creating a basis for the appeal of a guilty verdict . But that only illustrates how the protection of victim identities needs to be better enshrined in law and practice so it is not seen as a risky anomaly . Opinion : Tell toddlers what 's private about their bodies . However the rest of the trial goes , we we must continue to commit ourselves to building a justice system that takes into account the reasonable needs of child victims for privacy and protection . It is one of the biggest things we can do to help victims come forward and stop abusers after the first rather than the 10th victim . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Finkelhor .
David Finkelhor : Abuse victims may be watching Sandusky trial to see how victims are treated . He says good and bad news . Good : Victims today far more likely than in past to tell someone . He says teachers , cops , communities far more clued in , responsive on child sex assault . Bad : Schools have become less safe for children since the early 1990s ; schools now teach kids that sexual abuse is normal behavior.