Our series of three chapters (Faust, Bridges, & Ahern, 2009a, 2009b; Bridges, Faust, & Ahern, 2009) on the methodology of identifying sexually abused children elicited a number of comments, both supportive and critical. The criticisms appear related to three primary issues or apparent misconceptions of our work, perhaps due in part to incomplete exposition or ambiguity in presented material: our use of hypotheticals, our argument against "double-dipping," and our use of Bayesian analyses. We address each of these criticisms here in the hope of clarifying any misunderstandings and contributing in a constructive way to progress in this critical arena.