21
   

Why is sexual abuse of boys not taken seriously

 
 
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 10:22 pm
@Setanta,
i hope so.

boom deserves better than more of this.

i'll go back to being musical and shut up now...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 10:36 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

As if to prove my point about abuse not being taken seriously -- these are from the comment section following one article about this woman:

Quote:
? Alert us. Post a comment
Posted by extremedude2 on 09/11/09 at 2:26PM
More pics please!

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment
Posted by greybeard66 on 09/11/09 at 6:06PM
wish my mom looked like that

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment

Posted by geeduh on 09/12/09 at 5:54AM
HEY,
MAYBE...I'LL BAIL HER OUT OF JAIL....I THINK I AM ONE OF HER LONG LOST SONS...WAIT I'M OLDER THAN HER....HOW CAN THAT BE?

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment



Sigh.

That stuff gets said about rape etc. too, though.

Life's a bitch, and then you die.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:25 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
NB: see the Wabbit's [caustic?] response to it).


It WAS caustic.

From weariness and sadness, I think.

I have seen the "it has to be penetrative to constitute abuse" folk, here and elsewhere, appear to "get" that their position is false, only to see them return to it a few posts later.

It's sad, and I hate the idea of abused kids/adults seeing that and thinking that this might reflect a reasoned and informed opinion.

But getting caustic is, I agree, rather dumb.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:31 pm
I hadn't intended to berate you for your remark. I believe that kind of thinking deserves a caustic response, if only to wake up the party concerned. Boom's piece about the mother and her son is a very good example of the kind of abuse which gets sniggered at by people who just don't get it. See, for example, the comments which were posted by people too ignorant to get that the nature of abuse lies more in the psychological damage, and, as in that case, the betrayal of trust.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:37 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I love it that the ad at the bottom of my page is titled "fubar".

I went out to dinner and now my thread is FUBAR for sure.

That'll teach me to eat.


It's been a damn fine thread.

A few digressions do not detract from that.

Actually, it'd be interesting to open up a thread about what, if anything, is most effective in changing minds.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:37 pm
@Setanta,
I didn't take it as a beratement.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 01:28 am
@2PacksAday,
2PacksAday wrote:

..if only I would spell check it first....."opportunity"
And yes, that was a rather long way of saying bookmark...this is a tricky one,
most of the anecdotes that come to mind, don't really fit exactly....but I do have a few that do.
or take up fonetic spelling
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 01:53 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Quote:
NB: see the Wabbit's [caustic?] response to it).


It WAS caustic.

From weariness and sadness, I think.

I have seen the "it has to be penetrative to constitute abuse" folk,
here and elsewhere, appear to "get" that their position is false,
only to see them return to it a few posts later.

It's sad, and I hate the idea of abused kids/adults seeing that and
thinking that this might reflect a reasoned and informed opinion.

But getting caustic is, I agree, rather dumb.
The first thing that comes to mind qua sexual abuse of boys is penetration;
anal or oral sodomy (I 'm not much of an expert on sodomy),
but I have an open mind as to other possible forms thereof.

One way to avoid being guilty of any form of abuse is to practice politeness.
Before I retired, both on-the-job either taking depostions
of their testimony under oath first during discovery,
and later during trial in open court, I was always very courteous
to them -- no less than to adults-- not talking down to them,
nor referring to them by thier first names.

Off the job: the same thing.
Politeness can avoid your being accused of abusing anyone.
I recommend it.

(This is not to imply that when provoked,
on some occasions, I have laid it aside, in favor of candor.)





David
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:59 am
Before the thread went off the rails there was the question of punishment brought up, that has had me thinking for the last few days. While recognizing that boys can be abused by women, and that there are clearly cases that merit severe punishment I'm having a harder time reconciling prison time with other cases where the minor does not feel harmed and wondering how that can even be codified.

Any thoughts on this? Do others from the crowd that does recognize the potential for severe abuse have any thoughts on whether all such boundary crossing should be punished with incarceration? And if not, what kind of codification could differentiate between the cases?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 12:01 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The problem is that you can only determine the damage after the fact. No matter the actual outcome, the adult is risking damage to the child.

We ticket speeders and and imprison drunk drivers even if they don't cause an accident.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 12:38 pm
@DrewDad,
Not just after the fact, but significantly after the fact. If we don't think the child has ability to give informed consent then they can't give informed assessment of damage. It makes it tough.

As to the risk, I agree with that but I don't think we tend to send drunk drivers away for years either. I wonder what the sentencing trends tend to be for this kind of case and what a typical sentence would be. No matter what they are the sentencing guidelines must be tough to codify and interpret in these cases.
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:55 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Before the thread went off the rails there was the question of punishment brought up, that has had me thinking for the last few days. While recognizing that boys can be abused by women, and that there are clearly cases that merit severe punishment I'm having a harder time reconciling prison time with other cases where the minor does not feel harmed and wondering how that can even be codified.

Any thoughts on this? Do others from the crowd that does recognize the potential for severe abuse have any thoughts on whether all such boundary crossing should be punished with incarceration? And if not, what kind of codification could differentiate between the cases?



I'd certainly not support automatic incarceration.

E.g. Truly consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old where the age of consent is 16 would make incarceration nuts, in my view.

Not sure what you mean by codification, but there would be a number of things I would be looking at to indicate severity of offence, and thus guide sentencing, eg:

Difference in age and/or relative power.

Whether or not the adult in question has a relationship with the minor that carries a special duty of care...eg parent, carer, counsellor, minister, teacher etc.

Threats or inducements or violence.

Grooming and planning.

Length of abuse.

Whether offender came forward, or confessed upon confrontation, saving victim the extreme trauma of a trial...(though this is a tough one and I am undecided..nobody wants to see an innocent person pleading guilty out of fear.)

I could likely think of many more...but these are some of the biggies.





I am not sure you can give too much rigidity to the law around sentencing.....while not doing so gives a lot of leeway for judicial ignorance or prejudices, however, being very rigid in determining mandatory sentence lengths or types for particular crimes in my view does not allow for sufficient sensitivity to the circumstances of each case.


Research tends to support the issues I have named as tending to lead to more damage down the track, but I have no doubt that the factors that lead to greater damage will become more and more refined down the track.

Thing is, each kid is different, in terms of their resilience etc., of course.

But, overall, kids who have already been unlucky in their circumstances, and are therefore already not doing too well, tend to be at greater risk of abuse...a powerful risk factor being having a parent/s who was/were sexually abused themselves as children








0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 06:44 pm
Yep. Mandatory sentencing is all about politicians demonstrating to voters how tough on crime they are. Seems to have nothing to do with actual justice. Who can make better informed decisions on sentencing than judges? If there are such people, why aren't they judges? Let judges do their jobs. If they need more information, or training in certain areas, let's do that.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:04 pm
@Robert Gentel,
"boundary crossing" with the calculated intent to cause harm deserves prison time, however, those who cross because they are psychologically damaged or because they don't know any better should be treated by the public health establishment. Those who are playing sex games should be left alone, it is nobody else's business until one of them says that they are in need of help. Sex games that go bad were the playing with power ends up hurting one of the couple is almost never a calculated intent to harm, so it would be usually be treated by public health.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:16 pm
That sex games crapola is typical of you, Rapist Boy. Children who are not of the age of consent cannot reasonably consent to play the game, no matter what pro-sex abuse propaganda you peddle.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:21 pm
First, nobody here is talking about "sex games" between consenting adults.

With that out of the way...

The lines are blurry, and complicated....

A family court judge (a woman) here was just <ahem> relieved <ahem> of her responsibility to adjudicate custody desicions when she decided that a man, being held in jail for the rape of several pre-teen and teen age girls, was a suitable parent for his 13 year old son and should therefore be released on bail to parent his son.

He was released. But he is now serving 23 years for the rapes of said girls and his son is now in foster care.

I know this is a little off topic -- but what about convicted sex offenders who have kids?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:43 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
I know this is a little off topic -- but what about convicted sex offenders who have kids?

Do you mean should we treat sex offenders differently from other parents convicted of crimes?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:45 pm
@boomerang,
One would be concerned...re a known sex offender with kids. If they have offended against children they would possibly be refused contact, or supervised contact would be the go.

By the way, we have judges just like the one you speak of.

I know one personally who, as a lawyer, was defending a serial rapist. This was a man who broke into women's homes, raped them, and then stole stuff...which is how he was caught.

At a dinner party, while this guy was attempting to grope me (he sat on one side, my partner was next to me on the other side)...said he couldn't understand what the problem was with rape...it either gave women the time of their life, or a few moments discomfort. He also routinely defended the most vicious child sex offenders, as a specialty, and was known for his skills in traumatising child witnesses so badly that they were unable to continue their testimony.

Now he is a supreme court judge.

Here, adolescents and some adults (depending on the seriousness of the offence) may be directed towards therapy if they acknowledge the offence. Often there is a suspended sentence of some sort that can be actioned if they do not attend and co-operate.

Lots of adolescents are directed that way and that is a damn fine thing.

I think it is a fine thing for many adult offenders, too.

Not all, of course.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:54 pm
@dlowan,
this should be required reading for anyone who bashes Americas who are pissed off at the condition of our sex laws:
Quote:
Unjust and ineffective
Aug 6th 2009 | HARLEM, GEORGIA
From The Economist print edition

America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders. Does it work?

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

the answer is that is largly does not work, and it is abusive to boot.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:00 pm
@DrewDad,
yes. if they present a risk to the kids.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Did I deserve to be hit for cheating? - Question by loveplease123
What's wrong with me? - Question by sorandom
Abusive Father - Question by kyoko1229
too possessive - Question by jojo love
abuse - Question by jesscamp26
I want to abuse my girlfriend. - Discussion by echi
He loves me but my boyfriend is abusive at times... - Discussion by deniserichardson
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 05:01:08