Why is sexual abuse of boys not taken seriously

I'm falling behind in my own thread and I apologize but I had to interject something re: teaching kids about sex.

We've been doing that here over the last few months.

Not five minutes ago Mo asked me how old his other mom and dad were when they got married and I had to explain that you don't have to be married to make a baby (but that it is a REALLY, REALLY good idea).

I reminded him of the book we read (uncountable times) about how a baby gets made, and how it grows, and how it's born.

Mo has a pretty good understanding of human anatomy and reproduction.

Never, not once, NEVER (did I say never ever?) have I felt that I needed to physically demonstrate any aspect of sexuality for me to teach him these things.

Also, quickly, re: sexuality and sensuality, I make the distinction in that I feel that children can enjoy the sensations that, as adults, we describe as sexual. To the child, who has no real understanding of sex, it is just a good feeling and is not joined with the idea of sex. It's a feeling that effects their senses, therefore, sensual.

0 Replies

One more quick thing:

Thanks, dlowan, for adding your professional opinon to my thread. I know that when you aren't at work that you try to avoid such conversations. I'm always elated when you join such topics because you have so much to offer to the discussion but I always feel a bit sad that I dragged you into it.

So, thank you.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Don't get snotty with me, Rapist Boy. Out of deference to Boom, i've responded in a civil manner, but i won't be a martyr to civility. You've attempted to peddle this horseshit before. There are two good objections. The first is that your claims are meaningless without evidence--no one has to accept your statements form authority on the basis of ipse dixit. If you can't show overwhelming, scientifically reliable evidence that this is so, there's no reason for anyone to believe it--especially not simply because you have said it.

But the other objection is a better one. Centuries of the exploitation of children and the experience of society of adolescents thrust into adult roles are the reason for the changes which society has enacted which hold minors incompetent legally to make legally and financially binding decisions. There's no moral claims behind this and your snide remark about fundamentalism is just evidence of your profound ignorance. Henry III became King of England at the age of nine--the members of the baronage who had opposed his father, King John, took that as an opportunity to exploit the situation and revive the revolution. William Marshall became Lord Protector and England was subjected to another decade of civil war. Edward VI became King of England at age nine, and his reign also began with a protectorate, which resulted in riot and rebellion within two years, and religious bigotry raised to a fever pitch of persecutions and burnings.

Society learns lessons from that sort of thing--such as that hereditary monarchy is not a good idea, and that minors should not be put in positions of responsibility.

But i have not the least doubt that your agenda is to claim that it is both scientifically and morally defensible for you to put your shrivelled little weenie into as many nubile, pubescent minors as you can coerce. Just because of the self-serving drivel you've posted here for years now, i don't accept for a moment that you can back up your claims about what science would tell us about minors, and understand that you can't understand why the human experience informs us about the unwisdom of giving license to minors to behave as they wish.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

One more quick thing:

Thanks, dlowan, for adding your professional opinon to my thread. I know that when you aren't at work that you try to avoid such conversations. I'm always elated when you join such topics because you have so much to offer to the discussion but I always feel a bit sad that I dragged you into it.

So, thank you.

I agree now that you have explained your distinction re sexual/sensual.

Boomer, this stuff about sexual abuse by women being regarded as less serious is one of my "things"...so nobody dragged me anywhere.

I try and say something in these threads because I know how confusing this stuff can be for males who were sexually abused by women, and, since these threads get read by all sorts of folk, I feel as though it is good to say something...though Robert actually said everything I wanted to say I noted as I read back today.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

as with everything the context makes all of the difference. If the friends of the boy whom you call abused say to him that he is one lucky SOB then he will not feel abused, he will feel like a lucky SOB as David does.

This is not true. It is true that the degree to which the abuse is frowned upon by society can add additional suffering to the victim (the more negatively the abuse is viewed by society the more negatively it will be viewed by the victim) but it is simply not true that if society treats it as a positive thing it will taken that way.

I've seen this first hand, in a society that lives all the ideals you dream of and that taught the children that it was a beautiful thing and that the "taboos" were because of "man's laws" while nature made children ready to have sex at the onset of puberty. Without any outside influence (and I mean none, not even talking to people outside the group) many of the children still did not feel positively about their sexual experiences at some point, even if they didn't think it was morally wrong, and they suffered from it felt used, confused and conflicted about their premature sexual activity.

Quote:

The solution to the "problem" could be changing the reception of the activity to a positive one just as easy as it could be ending the activity.

That is wishful thinking on your part. It simply does not work this way in practice. Sex can have a strong emotional effect on people (even adults) and many children simply aren't ready for it. Many children may be, but there's no good way to tell before it's too late, and there is much less harm in erring on the side of caution than to go in the direction you seem* to support.

* More on this later, I've never seen you have the courage to stake out a real position on the matter (as opposed to vague innuendo).

Quote:

The do-gooders are all about trying to get people to decide that XYZ is bad, and then using peer pressure to end it. I have a feeling that everything would end up on their bad list eventually. We should use our own judgement. I am leery of following obvious black/white thinkers always, and even more when they feel like fundamentalists. At some point they start to register as authoritarian and thus backwards people. THe new age belongs to people who can think outside of the box that the collective builds for them.

You donning the mantle of the voice crying in the wilderness doesn't change that you speak from a position of ignorance and are simply not more enlightened than the "collective" you like to describe yourself as a man apart from. You like to invoke the fallacy of the appeal to popularity, as if the masses are deciding this is wrong only by sheer numbers but you conveniently fail to address the core logic behind the arguments (such as the basis of informed consent) while recycling these mere stereotypes.

So you paint society as uptight prudes while you see yourself as sexually "liberated", when the reality is that you simply can't address our arguments except through such stereotypes (whether or not the stereotypes are true).

Hawkeye I don't care a whit about what consensual adults (who are mentally capable, of course) do. I don't care that you are a swinger at all (quite frankly I was shocked that you thought that revelation has any shock value at all). Yes I don't care if I have a daughter who becomes a consensual "sex slave" as long as this decision is made at an age at which the consent is informed.

And no, I don't think that the only age that this can happen is 18. I think many teenagers are responsible enough to make these decisions and that many young adults in their early 20s are not. But a line needs to be drawn to protect children from those who seek to prey on their innocence and it's going to be an imperfect line no matter where you draw it.

No matter how twisted your sexual outlook, you recognize that a line must exist somewhere. You don't want toddlers being seen as fair game right? If so you already accept the basis of the arguments and the rest is just quibbling over exactly where the line should be drawn.

A fair case can be made that 18 is too high, but the truth is that no line is going to be perfect whether we are talking about sex or driving a car it's all the same.

Any sane adult should be able to recognize that there is a point in the development of children where they are not either physically or emotionally mature enough for sexual activity (or driving, or drinking, or riding a bike or whatever) and this is something you have no argument against, just fantasies and wishful thinking about being a man apart from the "collective".

For once I'd like to see you put up a real argument instead of vague innuendo. I've never seen you have the guts to come out and articulate a real position. So:

Do you desire to have sex with minors?
Do you think that there should be no line?
Do you think the current lines are incorrectly placed? (if so where do you advocate putting the line?)

You never come out and tackle the core issues, you just issue generalizations about the "collective" and how unenlightened they are in comparison to you and that's no argument, it's just a self-serving fantasy of yours. What is your position on the matter? Why don't you come out and state whether or not you want society to permit sex with minors instead of just alluding to this desire through innuendo?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The civilized world deplores the exploitation of children as child soldiers. The civilized world does not allow minors to sign binding contracts. The civilized world restricts the hours of employment for minors, and bars them from employment in many fields. In short, the civilized world recognizes that minors lack the skills of judgment and discernment which distinguish (at least ostensibly) adults, and therefore, in just about every aspect of life for which adults are not restricted, minors are. It's not just in the realm of sexuality.

the civilized world has been increasing the age at which humans are considered idiots and in need of chaperones, but science has proven that because of the technological advances humans are developing faster than we ever have. Biologically we are growing up faster than we once did. The law and majority attitudes should reflect reality as it has been proven by science. If you don't like that then prove science wrong, but don't come trotting down the road with your fundamentalist moral rantings. You are as yesterday as the Bible thumpers.

Actually, I think that is one of the sillier things I have seen you say.

Biologically, if we are well fed, we reach puberty earlier.

This is not the same as being grown up.

In an older, simpler world, when most humans had very short life spans, the requirements of adulthood were pretty simple.

Men had to ****, fight and feed....women had to have babies and get fed.

Adolescents could manage a lot of this, but still needed to learn from adults about it all.

Most likely never got to the age (about 25) when their brains were fully mature, but although many skills were needed, there weren't enormous consequences (except for the adolescent) when they stuffed up.

If junior was naughty, he had maybe had a a spear or a rock , and a bunch of adults to hold him down. If a girl had a baby when very young, there were a bunch of adults around to help with the care.

These days, there is an enormously complex world for kids to learn to live in.

The skills they need to negotiate this world are enormous, and the consequences of mistakes can go well beyond the individual.

For example, in your country, if junior goes ape, s/he can buy a gun capable of mowing down hundreds of people, and go do it.

Once, junior might have stacked the horse...now, junior can kill up to eight juniors in their own car, and maybe a bunch of other people in other cars if the fates decree.

If kids do not learn how to make their way in a complex world, they are doomed to a life of poverty, or crime, or drugs etc.

If she junior has a kid before she is able to care for it, there is no longer a bunch of adults to care for her and it , she and her child/ren all too often fall into a life of struggle and poverty and has a passel of kids, who grow up damaged and harmful to themselves and others.

There's a lot more to learn, and plenty of time to learn it in. We don't need to breed as fast as we can. The consequences of badly guided kids don't stop with junior being killed in the hunt....they reverberate through generations, and cost all of us a fortune in welfare and prisons and burden of ill health and ongoing abuse and damaged, non-functional kids.

There is an obvious case for longer trainer-wheels time.

By the way, do you seriously think that kids being kidnapped anddrugged and forced to slaughter others is ok? That little girls being kidnapped and raped for years to serve the boy-soldiers is ok?

Is this the freedom you espouse?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In other words,
YOUR intelligence is so relatively MAGNIFICENT that u need to start a FLAME WAR
on Boomer 's thread, because u r not enuf of a gentleman to be civil.
Did I get that right?

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:

David, even if you aren't calling others idiots I think what you are saying
is far more offensive. Second guessing the suffering from sexual abuse
is one of the more prevalent sources of ongoing suffering abuse victims face.

When I had posted that, u had mentioned a suicide, but DrewDad
had not yet stated that he had been abused by women, as a child.
It was my vu that this was not sufficient evidence of ill effects
(as of that time) to justify legal interference with a boy
endeavoring to get sexual satisfaction from a female of any age
approximately equal to his own, or older. As of that point in time,
no poster had complained of injury from sexuality with a woman.
I was of the opinion that the mention of the suicide was not
sufficient information, without more, to justify legal interference.
U subsequently revealed much more information about the suicide,
which was certainly impressive. As I read about The Family, I felt it
to be unhealthy, indeed, I had a sickening feeling in my stomach,
which is unusual for me; (not unique, but very unusual).

Quote:

To say that their very real pain is "idle superstition" is something that is going to deeply offend people,
even those who haven't been abused themselves but who can empathize with those who have been.

I said that before the arrival of additional information
about the murder & suicide of Ricky,
and before DrewDad said that he had been abused by a woman,
in his childhood.

Accordingly, I felt that there was insufficient evidence
of any ill effects -- thay were merely ASSUMED;
subsequently, evidence was forthcoming. I acknowledge that.

Quote:

You like to say that when men do it it's "perverted" but when women do it it is not,
but this shows very little understanding of paraphilia (a more scientific term for "perversion").

Tho I find this area of concern to be very interesting, I have not researched it.
Accordingly, u r correct about the paucity of my knowledge of this subject.
I was only raising questions.

Quote:

Given that the women in question were 17 and 23 this was not a
large chronophilia (the paraphilia when one's pychosexual age is
discordant with one's chronological age) if at all.

Agreed.
I deem that to be a rational argument, and I concede the point.

Quote:

In both cases it still represents sexual impropriety to me, in that
an 11-year old is often not emotionally and physically prepared for
sexual activity, but it may well be the case that you were.

I certainly assumed that to be the case. I never questioned it.
Thru out my life, my feelings have been the same about sex.

Quote:

However it is highly untoward for you to suggest that because
of this experience there is no such beast as pedophilia in women.

It has not been my belief that adult women have no interest in boys
(as I write this, I now remember another one when I was 9, whose advances I did not accept)
but rather, it was in my mind that the same way that I enjoyed MY freedom in this matter,
it shoud not be ruined for boys who will live later in time.
My vu of what makes life worthwhile are: freedom and pleasure;
libertarianism and hedonism, not only for ME, but for all citizens.
It pains me when I see things getting worsefor kids who follow
(e.g., shorter or loss of summer vacations from school).
The PLEASURE of life, the FUN, shoud be taken very seriously.
I am not kidding around when I say that.
As I see it, this is a matter of the most intense importance.
HOWEVER, I recognize
that part of hedonism is avoidance of pain.
IF sexual contact with adult women really IS going to endanger kids
with emotional pain, then a cost-benefits analysis is in order
(in addition to cognition of the natural rights of the kids).

Quote:

The existence of female hebephilia, ephebophilia and pedophilia is well documented
and what you experienced was simply not very far along the
spectrum of the paraphilia out there.

Upon the basis
of the information that u provided qua The Family, I must agree
that it was not very far along that spectrum. Differences of age
were the only unusual elements in the sexual experiences that I mentioned.
Except for that, the encounters were fully normal.

Quote:

I'll ask you again, do you have a line anywhere? Is a two-year old fair game?

Until u raised this question, I have never considered
this issue; it just never occurred to me. I did not draw a line.

Quote:

I know two year old males who were sexually abused by females.
They enjoyed it at the time but later grew to deeply resent the experience.

That 's more than I know.
I have never met any (tho I don 't usually discuss this much).
There views shoud be taken into consideration in drawing legislation,
as well as boys who had contrary effects, so as to be fair to everyone.

Quote:

Here is an example of one such case. The guy murdered one of the women who participated in the abuse in 2005 and then took his own life. As a child he expressed interest in the sexual activity being given him, but he lacked the maturity to give informed consent and it came to haunt him.

Your case represented a much smaller chronological discrepancy that Ricky's abuse started at and while it may not have been harmful to your estimation I urge you to consider that in other cases it can be, and that your particular experiences lacked many of the contributing factors that can make it so (such as authority figures, greater psychosexual vs chronological discrepancy and more).

It did.
I was completely free.
Both as a boy and as an adult, I have declined sexual overtures
of women to whom I was not attracted. That does not happen every day,
but it has happened, over the years.

If u will permit me to take a devil 's advocate position for a moment,
or the posture of defense counsel:
the description of Ricky 's misadventures leading to murder and suicide
were indeed startling and the circumstances of his youth were sickening,
but: can we know that no homicide and no suicide woud have
occurred in the absence of his being exposed to twisted sexual conduct
(e.g., witnessing his mother in orgies) ?

The description of his experience included assertions of
"stringent discipline" and "rapes and beatings".

In fairness, that is very different than simply making love.

Quote:

One of the reasons that this is such a polemic subject is that there
are relatively normal sexual attitudes that include such attractions.
There are adolescent males and females that healthy adults can feel
physical attraction for. But the realization that their physical and
emotional maturity may not be ready for sexual activity is what
should hold adults back and serve as a barrier to prevent predation
on weaker emotional beings.

The weak shoud be defended from oppression.
The question before us, as I understand it,
concerns government endeavoring to prevent an 11 year old boy
from sexual contact with a girl of 17 or of 23 years, if thay BOTH desire pleasure.

Quote:

I grew up in a group that preached that there was nothing wrong with adult/child sex.
And I do acknowledge that the girls who were abused often suffered more
than the boys who were. But that you were a willing participant at the time
means little, many of the girls I knew were as well, and among the girls
and boys alike many came to suffer very profoundly from their premature exposure to sexual activity.

Is it possible to describe the ill effects with greater specificity ?

Quote:

While it is certainly true that some may view the experience positively
it is very little harm to them to erect the barrier that protects those who don't.

I 'd have been much more likely
to harvest the available opportunity than to be concerned about others.
I am a selfish person now; I was a much, much more selfish person in my youth.
Their was no chance at all that I 've have cared about
the will of the collective, as represented in the law.
I surely woud have subordinated that to my own pleasure,
unless I saw that someone else 's rights were explicitly being violated on a tangible basis by my conduct.

For example, I 'd not have intentionally harmed someone else

Quote:

You having to wait till you were able to give informed consent
is worth the many lives destroyed by those who didn't get that opportunity,

The passage of time is perceived very differently
by the young than by the old. To them, a year feels like forever.

Quote:

and I urge you to consider that your experience may have been
positive for you, while the societal barrier still makes sense
in order to prevent the harm to those to whom it would not.

Yes; I will consider it. U have brought interesting n valuable ideas
to my attention. However, there remains the question of whether
the young (or the less young)
shall willingly subordinate their passions to the law.

Do u think that thay will ?

Historically, how well has that worked out ?

David

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

Actually, David, I can recall reading some research ages ago that suggests
that abuse by a close female...especially mother...is MORE emotionally damaging than abuse by father.

I can understand that; I AGREE with it,
tho incest with either is ineffably gross and repugnant,
just in different ways.

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

It was posited tha this might be because the emotional and
physical intimacy of the relationship and with, and expectations
of nurture from, the mother tends to be greater...and thus the
violation of the trust that the child needs to have in someone
in the mother role to ensure its very existence is thus even more
intense and intimate.

I have not researched this subject,
but what I intuit is that there are 2 very radically different and inconsistent kinds of love.

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

I don't mean that a child is necessarily more ATTACHED to mother than father,
but that gender roles have tended to make the mother/child bond more intimate.

In my observation,
a son is more attached to his mother, as a general rule, almost always,
but I have seen a few -- not many, but a few -- fantastic fathers.
It is a beautiful thing to see. When I did, I took the time
to acknowledge that to the father in question and to recognize
the value of his contribution to his sons' lives.

I don 't know to whom daughters tend to be more attached,
but I have known some who had shockingly bad maternal relationships.
Do u have an opinion about that?

Quote:

I would imagine that where a male is the primary care-giver, these dynamics would be the same.

In my opinion, a lot depends on the degree of affection and demonstrated benevolent interest
that is shown to the child by father or mother.
( I 'm referring to appropriate affection, here. )

Quote:

For males abused by females.....and I have only worked with a few,
compared with the other way round, so I don't feel as confident
in talking about them, my experience has been that the sense
of desperate confusion and fraughtness is exacerbated because of
the prevailing attitudes about male and female sexuality, and that
unwinding and making sense of all these feelings is a very difficult process.

Yes.

Quote:

That is so with male to male abuse, as well....because males tend
to feel "un-manned", at least from adolescence up....but there
seems to me to be a special confusion that female to male abuse brings up.

Quote:

And David, all your stuff about relative violence is kind of irrelevant,
in many ways, re child sexual abuse, of girls or boys.

Yes; I agree.

Quote:

Generally, such abuse is not physically violent....
it is the EMOTIONAL violence that kids are affected by.

Can u elaborate on that description of emotional violence ?
Specificly, what are the most common effects ?

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

Everything is so convulted now that I'm going against my instincts and quote boxing crap....

David said:

Quote:

There are things, very brutal things,that a male can do
(relating to forcible sodomy) that no female is able to do.

Boomerang wrote:

Quote:

Not true. Women can do any brutal thing a man can do,
they just need a "tool" of some sort. It might actually be more
brutal when someone has to plan ahead.

A male is contriving to substitute for female accomodation,
resulting in the distortion of anal sodomy, a desperation tactic.
Tell me if I 'm rong,
but I have a hunch that women have no interest in jamming anything in there.

David wrote:

Quote:

I have posted hereinabove on this thread that I condemn
and deplore perverted males having sexual contact with minors.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

But why don't you condemn perverted women for the same thing?

I re-iterate: any form of violence is criminal,
regardless of sexuality; e.g., if girl hits boy with a rock.
Therefore, if female sexual aggression is forced it is criminal
violence in and of itself. Remember the old saying:
"The difference between rape and seduction is salesmanship" ?
It was my position that if thay were only peacefully making love,
with no force, then it was harmless. I have since been challenged
as to the facts of that, in that it has been alleged that severe
emotional effects have resulted from voluntary sex between
women and boys. Therefore, I will keep an open mind that this
may be possible. It remains to be seen whether this is proven.
DrewDad said that he was adversely affected, but
(if my memory is accurate) we have no information about it
beyond a general complaint. Robert Gentel offered a very startling (to me)
account of repulsive boyhood abuse of several different kinds, involving
a lot of violence and apparent fear and degeneracy all of which ultimated in murder and suicide.

Whether sex in early youth, without more, woud have been
the competent, producing cause of murder and suicide, is unclear.

It remains to be seen whether any more evidence is received that can guide us in our evaluation.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

I brought up the gay teenager because you seem to base your argument on sexual attraction.
I was wondering if sexual attraction still played a role when a woman assaults a gay teen.

If it were actual forcible sexual violence, against his will,
then the law provides for that (criminally) without need of considering
the age of the victim. It woud be the same as if a drunken driver
knocked over a bicyclist, regardless of his age.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

You aren't attracted to men

Yes; I have ofen wondered
WHAT anyone coud possibly see in us; gross.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

so you seem men assaulting a boy as criminal, and you give women a pass.

It is a fact that a lot of the time, not 100%,
I tend to take it easier on chicks. Most of the time, I don 't tend to get too ruff
with them, as possibly I might be more disposed to do with a guy.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

If a boy is not attracted to women does that change the nature of the assault?

Yes; violent criminal assault = violent criminal assault. Its fungible.

However, I imagine that a genuinely unwilling boy probably woud succeed
in defending himself, with or without a weapon, if the aggressor is a female, in my opinion.

David

0 Replies

@boomerang,

Sex between a boy and a woman is not the same thing as sex between a girl and a man.

Number one a boy can not get pregnant and give his parents the task of raising a child.

Number two boys are not the one with the task of picking a mate that will be with them for twenty years plus to aid them in raising their children and for that reason alone society had a far greater interest in protecting young females from sexual predators until they hopefully reach the point where they have a chance to pick such a lifetime mate.

Failing picking a good lifetime mate at least they are old enough to have a chance to develop the skills to raise children on their own if need be.

0 Replies

I must say, Boomer:
when considering the answer to your question,
we must consider the degree abuse and of the injury; if it is severe,
then all bets are off and there will be hell to pay, no matter WHO.

0 Replies

Oh my.

I've been reading Robert's links and clicking from there -- to the video of Ricky loading his guns and explaining why he felt the "need" to do what he did.

It's heartbreaking.

I don't even know what to say.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Can u elaborate on that description of emotional violence ?
Specificly, what are the most common effects ?

David, there are literally hundreds of thousands of bits of research on this...I cannot count the material I alone possess.

I have worked with abuse and trauma for nearly thirty years now, and I learn something new every day.

Thr research on trauma generally is progressing so fast at present that, by the time a book is published, it is slightly out of date.

Almost anywhere on the net you are likely to find a simple summary:

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html

http://www.web4health.info/en/answers/sex-abuse-effects.htm

There are a couple of quick and dirty summaries that, on quick reading, appear reasonably accurate, although, of course, extremely limited.

However, each child is different, and the effects depend on so many factors that I will likely bore everyone to death just listing the ones that are at the top of my head on a sleepy Sunday morning.

constitution of child
attachment status of child to primary care-givers
Intelligence of child
Nature of abuse:
How often
By whom
Whether accompanied by violence and/or threats
Whether child discloses or not
Whether child is believed and protected upon disclosure
Ability of care-givers to support child after dosclosure
Other trauma experienced by child
Trauma experienced by family/care-givers
Child's emotional/psychological status

I could go on and on.

For a happy, healthy child, where the abuser is not in an intimate relationship with child and child is not terrified or physically harmed, discloses immediately, is believed and protected, and is lucky enough to have a family who are emotionally steady and available, effect can be minimal.

Sometimes if such a child is brought to therapy, the main task is convincing the family the child is ok.

For a child who is abused over time, does not disclose or is not believed and protected, has a poor attachment relationship, or has a family unable to adequately care for child's emotional needs generally and so on, the result can be catastrophic for the child's emotional, psychological and physical development......as with other trauma. (Trauma, especially over time, can have a significant deleterious effect on the brain of a growing child.... http://www.childtrauma.org/ )

And there are the multi-generational effects.

Abused parents are more likely to have their kids abused...presumably because their own boundaries have been so distorted that they are not as capable as luckier folk to act protectively, and they are often attracted to abusive partners...sometimes multiply.

They may act abusively themselves.

Sexual abuse often affects even good attachment relationships in young children....even if the parent is immediately protective. Young children tend to believe their parents know everything, and so tend to think that their parent/s knew about the abuse and did nothing....this has massive efrects if not resolved.

If parents DID know, and did not protect, often because they, themselves, have experienced distorting levels of trauma themselves...well, you can imagine trying to sort THAT mess out.

When abused children act out with anger, or destructive behaviour, this can damage the relationship with parents who do not know, or are not emotionally equipped to deal with the extreme behaviour and feelings that can result from abuse.

David, it goes on and on and on.

I can't distill the stuff for you without writing for hours.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

Okay. Can this stop now? It was a pretty good conversation for a bit.
Personally, I'm glad David joined in, it can get kind of boring
when we all sit around agreeing with each other.

Thank u, Boomer.
I gotta be me; if I post, I need to be sincere.
Hypocrisy is alien to my nature and abhorent to my nature.
It woud also be wasteful of my time that of everyone.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

I think David's experience is valid.
What mystifies me is that he thinks it is so universal
as to preclude women being punished for such behavior.

1. It is part of human nature to project our own feelings upon
our fellow human beings. This can be inaccurate and thereby unjustified.

2. I was elated by their overtures to me and by the results thereof.
Accordingly, I 'd have been very energetic in defending them
if that had been necessary; it was not, because our privacy was intact.
Defending them is radically inconsistent with punishing them.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

I confess to experimenting with a variety of recreational drugs
and enjoying all of it. I don't recommend that it all be legalized
simply because I thought it was fun.

If u looked upon your dealers as friends, because of their contributions to the fun of your life,
then u 'd probably not wish to take measures to have them punished.
IF u looked upon them as friends because of their contributions
to the fun of your life, then possibly, u might wish to protect them from D.E.A.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

The idea of it no longer appeals to me.

I never got into drugs.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

I'll wager that David is no longer having sex with women 20 years his senior.

That is true; i.e., it has worked out that way, but not as a matter of conscious decision.
I have not decided to ostracize them.
The truth is that in my social relations, choices of friends over the years,
I have not discriminated much. I have been very approachable.
I am not a snob. In NY, I am the leader of a fine dining group.
People of all ages have attended, participating in social conversation.
I have attended many conventions, at which it is not uncommon to meet new people;
sometimes ten of us have gone out to dinner together, for a pleasant evening.
I have never even entertained the idea (let alone spoken it)
of rejecting friendly conversation with anyone for being
too old nor too young. This is not a sex-driven thing.

Before we die, we shoud enjoy the fruits of convivial friendship as much as possible.

David

0 Replies

David wrote:

if I post, I need to be sincere.
Hypocrisy is alien to my nature and abhorent to my nature.

You have yet to convince me of this assertion's sincerity....

2 Replies

@Francis,

David wrote:

if I post, I need to be sincere.
Hypocrisy is alien to my nature and abhorent to my nature.

Francis wrote:

Quote:

You have yet to convince me of this assertion's sincerity....

Be that as it may, Francis.
It falls to u to decide what to believe about anything and anyone.
If I convince u, I don 't win a prize.

David

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Oh my.

I've been reading Robert's links and clicking from there -- to the video of Ricky loading his guns and explaining why he felt the "need" to do what he did.

It's heartbreaking.

I don't even know what to say.

It was indeed.
I was very taken aback.

The life of The Family caused me to feel sickened in my stomach.

David

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Quote:
Can u elaborate on that description of emotional violence ?
Specificly, what are the most common effects ?

David, there are literally hundreds of thousands of bits of research on this...I cannot count the material I alone possess.

I have worked with abuse and trauma for nearly thirty years now, and I learn something new every day.

Thr research on trauma generally is progressing so fast at present that, by the time a book is published, it is slightly out of date.

Almost anywhere on the net you are likely to find a simple summary:

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html

http://www.web4health.info/en/answers/sex-abuse-effects.htm

There are a couple of quick and dirty summaries that, on quick reading, appear reasonably accurate, although, of course, extremely limited.

However, each child is different, and the effects depend on so many factors that I will likely bore everyone to death just listing the ones that are at the top of my head on a sleepy Sunday morning.

constitution of child
attachment status of child to primary care-givers
Intelligence of child
Nature of abuse:
How often
By whom
Whether accompanied by violence and/or threats
Whether child discloses or not
Whether child is believed and protected upon disclosure
Ability of care-givers to support child after dosclosure
Other trauma experienced by child
Trauma experienced by family/care-givers
Child's emotional/psychological status

I could go on and on.

For a happy, healthy child, where the abuser is not in an intimate relationship with child and child is not terrified or physically harmed, discloses immediately, is believed and protected, and is lucky enough to have a family who are emotionally steady and available, effect can be minimal.

Sometimes if such a child is brought to therapy, the main task is convincing the family the child is ok.

For a child who is abused over time, does not disclose or is not believed and protected, has a poor attachment relationship, or has a family unable to adequately care for child's emotional needs generally and so on, the result can be catastrophic for the child's emotional, psychological and physical development......as with other trauma. (Trauma, especially over time, can have a significant deleterious effect on the brain of a growing child.... http://www.childtrauma.org/ )

And there are the multi-generational effects.

Abused parents are more likely to have their kids abused...presumably because their own boundaries have been so distorted that they are not as capable as luckier folk to act protectively, and they are often attracted to abusive partners...sometimes multiply.

They may act abusively themselves.

Sexual abuse often affects even good attachment relationships in young children....even if the parent is immediately protective. Young children tend to believe their parents know everything, and so tend to think that their parent/s knew about the abuse and did nothing....this has massive efrects if not resolved.

If parents DID know, and did not protect, often because they, themselves, have experienced distorting levels of trauma themselves...well, you can imagine trying to sort THAT mess out.

When abused children act out with anger, or destructive behaviour, this can damage the relationship with parents who do not know,
or are not emotionally equipped to deal with the extreme behaviour and feelings that can result from abuse.

David, it goes on and on and on.

I can't distill the stuff for you without writing for hours.

That 's fine, Dlowan; I 'm thankful for your thoughts.
I don 't want to inconvenience u.

I did not find comment upon my own situation, tho.
I woud have felt extremely uncomfortable discussing my sex life
with either of my parents, and I never did it.

I 'd have been offended if either of them had done so with me,
and I woud have (reflexively) stopped such a conversation
at any age that I can think of because it woud have been gross.

I was looking in your comments for my situation, wherein I very actively
and persistently sought out more sex from my 23 year old girlfriend when I was 11.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As I read about The Family, I felt it
to be unhealthy, indeed, I had a sickening feeling in my stomach,
which is unusual for me; (not unique, but very unusual).

David that makes me very glad. They used a lot of your arguments to support their activities, the leader of the group used to recount his own sexual activities and fantasies as a minor to justify the positions that led to this group's activities and I'm glad your own moral compass isn't like theirs.

They caused an awful lot of harm in the name of sexual freedom. Thousands of kids that came out of this group suffer to this day because of the culture of liberty they espoused.

Quote:

HOWEVER, I recognize
that part of hedonism is avoidance of pain.
IF sexual contact with adult women really IS going to endanger kids
with emotional pain, then a cost-benefits analysis is in order
(in addition to cognition of the natural rights of the kids).

This recognition is what I sought to achieve, and it makes it all worthwhile. A lot of times adults think that because they like sex, and because they craved it as adolescents that it is something that adolescents should be able to indulge in. Sex is something that adolescents certainly can enjoy, but it's a delicate issue at a delicate time and introducing stark age differences, breaches of confidence, abuse of authority and other factors can make it a very harmful experience.

I trust that it wasn't for you but with a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old it isn't likely to have had many of the contributing factors that can make it feel creepy for the kid at some point.

In any case I'm glad that you are able to see the potential for harm as well as the need to prevent such harm on some level. There is a legitimate argument that can be made about what kind of protections are needed and reasonable people can disagree about just where the lines should be drawn (I disagree with the way many of the current laws are structured myself) but there needs to be some kind of line at some level.

Quote:

Differences of age
were the only unusual elements in the sexual experiences that I mentioned.
Except for that, the encounters were fully normal.

And the differences in age weren't that stark either. In many places the 17-year-old would not have even committed a crime and even in the case of the 23-year-old the age discrepancy was not that large.

With a larger discrepancy there would have been more potential for psychological harm, and one of my qualms with "statutory rape" laws is that this is rarely taken into consideration. If I had my druthers things like an 18-year-old having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend would never be illegal, and the "statutory rape" laws would require a greater age discrepancy in order to more accurately target the kind of sexual predation that is harmful to minors.

I'm glad your case wasn't harmful and I'm glad that you can see the potential for harm and the need to balance sexual liberty with protection of minors.

Quote:

Until u raised this question, I have never considered
this issue; it just never occurred to me. I did not draw a line.

It's a good one to start with, because it's easy to find fault with the current lines. They will be flawed in some ways no matter where they are drawn and this leads many to argue against the lines.

However if you consider a scenario with no lines it makes most reasonable people agree that a line must exist somewhere, and at that point it's really an argument over where it should be rather than whether there should be lines at all.

If we can agree that a toddler shouldn't be able to give informed consent to sexual activity with an adult then we can agree that there needs to be a line somewhere.

Quote:

Quote:
I know two year old males who were sexually abused by females.
They enjoyed it at the time but later grew to deeply resent the experience.
That 's more than I know.
I have never met any (tho I don 't usually discuss this much).
There views shoud be taken into consideration in drawing legislation,
as well as boys who had contrary effects, so as to be fair to everyone.

I'm glad you acknowledge this. It's often difficult to discuss such things dispassionately, and I try my best in the hope that I can help make a difference. If I change one mind or make someone rethink something like this it means the world to me.

I, in turn, would like to acknowledge that the current lines can be flawed as well, and that they will sometimes infringe on legitimate sexual liberty (such as in the example I provide of an 18-year-old with a 17-year-old girlfriend or boyfriend).

Quote:

If u will permit me to take a devil 's advocate position for a moment,
or the posture of defense counsel:
the description of Ricky 's misadventures leading to murder and suicide
were indeed startling and the circumstances of his youth were sickening,
but: can we know that no homicide and no suicide woud have
occurred in the absence of his being exposed to twisted sexual conduct
(e.g., witnessing his mother in orgies) ?

It's hard to say, there were certainly a lot of other factors that contributed to his rage. The fact that his abuse was published may have inflicted as much suffering as the abuse itself did, for example, and I know from discussions with him that what happened to his sisters bothered him tremendously.

But he also discussed how he enjoyed the sexual freedom as a minor and then grew to feel shame and guilt for it. I can only say that I know they were contributing factors but can't tell you whether he would have taken two lives had there not been such additional factors involved.

If I had to guess I would say no, but at the same time if I had to guess I'd say that he'd still be alive if the group obeyed the laws in regard to sexual contact with minors. If it wasn't his own sexual abuse that was the last straw it would have been the abuse of others that was done in his name (to explain it very bluntly, they distributed his abuse as a child-rearing manual and encouraged other mothers to perform oral sex on their children).

In this particular group the girls suffered more than the guys did, and in his suicide video he alludes to a feeling of being lucky to have been a guy, so his motivation might have had as much to do with the other abuse he witnessed as it did with that he endured. But then again he wouldn't be the first person personally motivated by their own abuse to lead a crusade to right the abuse of others that I know. You'd be surprised at how many victims of abuse don't like to see themselves as victims even though their strong feelings about the abuse of others is primarily motivated by having experienced it themselves.

But this wasn't actually the suicide case I initially referred to. Ricky's case is one I can freely reference but I do not publish or discuss such levels of detail for other cases that do not fit my criteria for disclosure and one of them is that I won't be the first to publish or disclose any details without explicit instructions to do so.

A big part of the suffering such victims face is the invasion of their privacy, and the shame they feel about their experiences. Because of this I've made sure my work in such projects is very careful not to "re-victimize" the victims through improper handling of their experiences.

For this reason I can't discuss other cases that aren't already published in any way. I need to be able to maintain the confidence of the people who entrust me with their painful experiences. I've seen many do-gooders bungle this badly and continue to hurt the victims and I'm determined not to do the same.

Quote:

The description of his experience included assertions of
"stringent discipline" and "rapes and beatings".

In fairness, that is very different than simply making love.

Very true, but I'd like to point out that forcible rape was virtually unheard of in this group. The sexual component of the abuse was pretty much always consensual (except, of course, in that many of the participants lacked the ability to give informed consent).

In fact, they didn't like to use terms like "having sex", and insisted in calling it "making love", "sharing" and other such terms. In virtually all cases they really did believe they were doing nothing wrong, and were not forcibly raping children, they were introducing them to sex with the view that it was a beautiful and natural thing that they should "share" with them.

My point is that even though it was consensual, and that many of the minors did not object to it at the time, many grew to deeply resent the experiences. This is the core reason there needs to be a line that seeks to establish informed consent. Many kids might willingly participate in sex, but lack the emotional maturity to fully understand what they are consenting to.

Quote:

The weak shoud be defended from oppression.
The question before us, as I understand it,
concerns government endeavoring to prevent an 11 year old boy
from sexual contact with a girl of 17 or of 23 years, if thay BOTH desire pleasure.

See above. Even though a child may desire it, they may be "miswanting" and most likely won't fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. This is why even if a child tells you that they want you to shoot them you really shouldn't do so. Same with sex, just because they desire it doesn't mean they are giving informed consent.

Part of protecting the weak from oppression is understanding that sometimes children may desire things or consent to things that they know nothing about, and that their choice doesn't represent informed consent.

Quote:

Is it possible to describe the ill effects with greater specificity ?

I try, but it's a fairly large body of knowledge you are asking me to describe and I can't begin to do it justice in a forum post.

A common part of the suffering is the feeling of shame. Shame for being duped, shame when the realization comes that the child wasn't particularly special to the adult and that the adult was just after their own satisfaction, shame at the realization that the adult is creepy. I could go on indefinitely but shame is a central part of their suffering.

Children often wake up to their sexuality as a power they begin to test. When it draws the attention of others they often fail to realize it's not because they are so special but because others are horny. So when they share intimacy with an adult who makes them feel special they often begin to resent this when they later realize it wasn't about them being special at all and was all about them being available and willing.

They may realize that their attraction to the adult was one of innocent trust, of respect for an authority figure, of the desire to please an elder and realize that their sexual affection was misplaced badly.

This can result in a litany of suffering. What if you slept with someone who you later realized was a man? Even though you might have felt attraction, and consented, you'd feel very strong and conflicting emotions when you realized the sexual encounter wasn't what you thought it was.

This is a rough example that I think you can easily relate to but it is similar to the realization many victims of child abuse face when they fully understand their experiences. They may come to view their abusers as people who used them and took advantage of their innocence in a very intimate way. They may then feel like "damaged goods", they may feel stupid and naive and they can't ever undo what happened.

They may try to tell their parents, and have their parents beat them and blame them for what happened. They may avoid telling their parents for fear that such a thing may happen. They may be ostracized by society ("I don't want my kid playing with that poor abused kid, he/she must not be right in the head"). They may feel both love and hate for their abuser and feel betrayed in a very complex way that they can't fully resolve within themselves. They may remember it every time they ever have sex again, and may struggle with relationships severely as a result. They may themselves develop paraphilia, and may seek out young sexual partners themselves to feel in control of what is a sensitive situation for them. They may grow to hate women or men (whatever gender their abuser was) and never be able to fully trust them or develop healthy intimacy with them. There are many ways that the suffering manifests itself, ranging from slight to debilitating.

I try to help many victims of abuse, not just because so many peers of mine were abused but because it's everywhere and I run into victims of abuse everywhere I go (and can see the signs of it better than most). I can't begin to explain how small and helpless it makes me feel just hearing the stories I hear. Just knowing the stories has brought me suffering that makes me want to scream sometimes. If just knowing these stories second hand and not having any way to vent them because of the privacy issues has such a toll on me you should be able to imagine the toll it takes on them.

Simply put, many children are betrayed in such profoundly intimate ways that they will live with it for a long time. A good example of the complexity of the emotion they are dealing with is that sometimes I actually have to tell them that it's ok for them to hate the person who is causing them their pain that it's not their fault that they feel that way and can't bring themselves to forgive someone so close to them. They were betrayed by people whose emotional proximity to them conflicts them to their core.

You'll have to just trust me on this, there is severe suffering out there as a result of premature sexual exposure, betrayal of trust and failure to respect certain sexual boundaries.

Quote:

Yes; I will consider it. U have brought interesting n valuable ideas
to my attention. However, there remains the question of whether
the young (or the less young)
shall willingly subordinate their passions to the law.

Do u think that thay will ?

Historically, how well has that worked out ?

The point of the laws isn't really to get the young to understand to protect themselves, but to be able to provide society with a legal instrument to protect them. So it's not intended to get the minor to reject the sexual advances of a pedophile so much as to have the legal instrument available to ensure that the pedophile can be restricted from claiming another victim.

It's obviously much more effective at moderating the activity of the pedophiles than the naivete of the children. Without such regulation minors suffered a lot more historically.

It's also important to note that the laws don't just exist to prevent sexual predation, but also because of the complex issue of parental responsibility. Putting it very simply, if we are to hold parents responsible (financially, legally etc) for their children till they are 18 then their actions, such as getting pregnant, are not entirely their own responsibility.

This is a similarly complicated can of worms, and many times laws aren't just there to convince the child of what they should do but to provide society, and the parents, a legal instrument to shape the behavior of children they are responsible for. This is one reason the line is imperfectly drawn. After all, if you are going to hold parents responsible for their children till they are 18 then there are complications in allowing the child to make decisions that can deeply impact the parent's responsibilities.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis, can you please respect Boomerang's request? The ad-hominems and petty jabs at each other don't contribute to the discussion and can have the potential to disrupt it for all, not just the target of your intended slights.

1 Reply

Why is sexual abuse of boys not taken seriously

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know