Child Abuse - An Indictment of Society

greenberg said:
I think there's more than that to it.

Abuse tends to "run in the family", abusers have often been abused themselves when they were children.

Considering this, to expose an abuser could mean also exposing his childhood and the rest of the family. This would be a scandal for the whole family, stigmatizing all.

Also, the abuser's abuser might not be alive anymore. In that case, the whole blame and punishment would ba laid on the current abuser (and his living family), while his abuser got away with it. It would be unfair.


Not to forget that if the father was the sole breadwinner, a charge of paedophilia and possibly prison sentence would seriously endanger the wellbeing of the family. He'd probably lose his job and would have difficulty finding a new one.

The legal leniency is understandable - the law had to make a choice between what it perceived a greater and a lesser evil.
Click to expand...

That's sick. It's interesting it's the conservatives who feel the way you do and don't call this 'bleeding heart liberalism'. It makes me want to vomit. In essence, you are making excuses for abusers. It's heinous actually.

The whole abuse laid on the family?? LOL. An abuser is an abuser and has to be held accountable or it will never stop. People who have weaknesses will continually exploit it. The lie that's perpetuated in society by those abusers and those who take advantage is that they want a way around it. Oftentimes abusers abuse simply because of opportunism and it's the easiest thing to do, it's called narcissism. I'm sick of hearing these lies of excuses because their are plenty of those who have been abused who don't continue the practice because that goes against thier values. Those who abuse don't care about the effects on others, but only themselves and that is the real bottomline why they really abuse period. Otherwise, they would stop taking their crap out on someone convenient.
 
Grantywanty said:
Shouldn't that be an on the table, democratically arrived at prioritization?
Click to expand...

Lawmaking is politics. The end result, that which is actually written in the law books, is the result of many political subtleties that might be completely unrelated to the issue that a particular law regulates.

Also, laws are usually passed in a process of voting, but the particular law that is eventually passed does not carry with it the information on the vote ratio. It's passed, regardless whether it got 51% support or 99% support (although the necessary percentage of support varies from country to country).

I'm saying this to point out the fact that the situation is complex.
 
now
it appears that i want to indict society for "child abuse" but that is not what we seem to be focusing on since the op sets the emphasis on "child sexual abuse". it is a subset of ca and deals specifically with sexual activity between adults and minors. a spanking cannot generally be filed under csa.

do we have a clinical definition for this? whats constitutes csa? who provides the definition. how do we reconcile the differences b/w age of consent statutes and a clinical definition? what about the contrast in societal mores b/w different cultures? should societal mores take precedence over actual data? is one culture more correct than the other?

well, it turns out there was big stink about all this in 1998. i vaguely remember it been discussed on talk radio but did not quite grasp the magnitude of it

a link that explains it in a bit more detail can be found below
it starts of with an extremely dramatic entry......"For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal.

and not surprisingly, the apa is involved.... The Rind Controversy
 
Last edited:
The Physiological Angle AKA Nature Works in Mysterious Ways

in order to clarify some of the terms and concepts used in this discussion, i believe it would be pertinent to establish a scientific; specifically, biological, basis for the assumptions inherent in the terms. lets eyeball puberty. its from the wiki so.......

The age at which puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. Researchers refer to this drop as the 'secular trend'. From 1840 through 1950, in each decade there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European female samples.

In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their first menarche at average 17 years.
In France in 1840 the average was 15.3 years.
In England the 1840 average was 16.5 years for girls.
In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.

The most likely cause is the increase of weight gain in the world's youth. Some parents fear that it may be caused by hormones and other additions in processed milk and meats. puberty

i sure this particular angle could be fleshed out in more detail. i urge contributions from the public. hurry. it is best to prempt a post in the works tentatively titled......."Chasing Orgasms" ;)

/thinking about the children
 
Last edited:
Gustav said:
The Physiological Angle AKA Nature Works in Mysterious Ways
Click to expand...
It's a shame that childhood is being shortened. That was done to me artificially and it was horrible. I was "too smart" for my grade so I skipped sixth grade and was promoted from fifth grade directly into seventh: junior high school, or "middle school" as it's now called. My childhood was over, suddenly I was thrown in with kids who were already starting puberty. They were flirting with each other, talking about sex, their bodies were doing things that mine couldn't do. I lost a year of my childhood.

Yet we're living longer. Less childhood, more adulthood. How crappy!
 
S.A.M. said:
I'm interested in the reasoning behind the leniency. What was it?
Click to expand...
There is a long worldwide tradtion of viewing children and women as the property of men. In many cultures it is very hard to prosecute a man for raping his wife, for example. By definition it cannot be rape since he has a right to sex. Sex with children is often noted as bad, but as property it is not as bad as raping someone else's property.

'Reasoning' of course does not have to have much to do with reality: for example the reality of the raped child. It is worse to be abused by someone who is a family member.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
It is worse to be abused by someone who is a family member.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's one thing to grow up not trusting strangers. Or even learning that you have to form your own judgments about people you meet rather than automatically trusting the judgment of your friends and family. But it's another thing to grow up not being able to trust your family.

That violates the pack-social instinct, a fundamental component of our nature that we've inherited from several million generations of primates. We instinctively rely on and care about the people we've known and lived among since birth.

For someone to betray that kind of trust--the trust of his own child--is not just uncivilized. It's not even just inhuman. He's not even a proper damn monkey!

Yeah I know, we all feel betrayed by our parents. They did this or that thing that seemed cruel, maybe they even hit us a few times when they were angry. But that was a lesson that parents are as weak and frail as all other human beings, most of the time they try to do their best and occasionally they fail. We're all like that. That's not the same thing as the kind of abuse we're talking about.

It doesn't even have to be sexual abuse, I had a few friends who were regularly beaten up or whipped by their fathers (or even their mothers, it's frightening what you can accomplish with a heavy kitchen utensil), and they were just as traumatized for life as kids who were sexually abused.

Maybe even more so. Many people who sexually assault children do it in a way that does not cause physical pain or even discomfort, and they give it the trappings of a "fun new game." Their endocrine system doesn't generate the feeling of violation or revulsion that it will when they hit puberty, and they haven't been taught intellectually that it's wrong. (At least back in my day. Nobody talked with children about sex. At all.) So they had to become teenagers and learn about this stuff, and very slowly the realization would hit them, "You mean all that stuff Uncle Billy Bob and I were doing was WICKED?" I can't imagine how that revelation feels, but at least they had their first eleven or thirteen years of being able to grow up and not be troubled by it. If your dad starts whipping you with his belt when you're six, you don't get that.
 
Well apes and other animals have a tendancy to have sex with their children.
Adolescent females will jock a adult of the species, however their appears to be no emotional attachement as you would find with humans, so it appears that it is all about hormones when it comes to animals.
About 16 is a natural age for human female pregancy Considering thay are indeginous resting with habitat in nature enviroment.

As well in some places 12 years old or purbity is considered a ripe age for sexuality, often even in industrial societies you find sexually active youth.

So in end iT really depends on what kind of society you live in, when you consider the age of sexual preformance and or what is called molestation.

the one thing that incest creates is disfunctional children: and for that reason increst is illegal, oddly most laws limit interfamily sex to the third cousin, however this is not suffcient to eliminate the deleterois effects of imbreeding/incest, it has to be assumed that the laws are ones that are a hopeful effort in detering incest as they can't stop such sex acts between cousins ect...

in some cultures it is the mothers responsiblity to develope the childs penis, and so you find mother ejaculating their young sons in order to develope the adolsecents penis. As well young female may in some cultures be taught sexual intercouse and how best to please a male by their fathers. it sounds all to strange but it exist amoung humans as a pratice in some cultures.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
There is a long worldwide tradtion of viewing children and women as the property of men. In many cultures it is very hard to prosecute a man for raping his wife, for example. By definition it cannot be rape since he has a right to sex. Sex with children is often noted as bad, but as property it is not as bad as raping someone else's property.

'Reasoning' of course does not have to have much to do with reality: for example the reality of the raped child. It is worse to be abused by someone who is a family member.
Click to expand...

Even as property, there is something wrong with a person who cannot take good care of his property.
 
MetaKron said:
Even as property, there is something wrong with a person who cannot take good care of his property.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: I do NOT endorse the idea of women and children being property.

As far as your response, well, yes, I suppose. But I mean if the guy next door takes a baseball bat to his dishwasher, I don't think he should go to jail.
 
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker said:
Maybe even more so. Many people who sexually assault children do it in a way that does not cause physical pain or even discomfort, and they give it the trappings of a "fun new game." Their endocrine system doesn't generate the feeling of violation or revulsion that it will when they hit puberty, and they haven't been taught intellectually that it's wrong. (At least back in my day. Nobody talked with children about sex. At all.) So they had to become teenagers and learn about this stuff, and very slowly the realization would hit them, "You mean all that stuff Uncle Billy Bob and I were doing was WICKED?" I can't imagine how that revelation feels, but at least they had their first eleven or thirteen years of being able to grow up and not be troubled by it. If your dad starts whipping you with his belt when you're six, you don't get that.
Click to expand...

I don't think it works quite like that. I do think it is better if the violation is non-violent and seductive. But I think it generally is felt by the child to be a violation. It's just that they don't trust those feelings. They, in their mind's, override the feelings and accept the official description of the event: that it is a game. Later when they find out there was something wrong, these old feelings are now given the acceptence they deserved at the time.

And really we don't have to have full out abusive parents to realize the truth of this. Most of our parents had control issues or unneccessarily curt reactions to certain things, etc. You know banal but unpleasant facets of their parenting and personalities. We may take this as simply reality until later when we meet other parents who do not do this and suddenly we realize that it is not life itself that is a little off - or we are off - but rather there WAS, after all, something kooky about mom or dad. We had the reaction, but we just kind of dismissed it, respressed, thought it was they way things are in general, etc.
 
As i was saying in my earlier post in some cultures, sexual contact does exist between the parent and the child, in cultures where the mother is responsible for the development of the male childs penis, whcih may include the ejaculation of the child,massages of the groin, streaching of the penis, special oils for rubbing the penis to condtion it, wrapping it in special cloths so that the penis is elongated ect.... this type of contact is to develope her childs penis, but yet it invovles sexual contact. the young male is familuar with the sexual contact and stimulus of a female by his teenage years. to these people there is no shame or embarrasment to this practice. his mother is not going to get pregnant by him. it is a form of sexual development and sex education for the youngster.
likewise the same exist in cultures where the female is taught the ways of sexual intercourse by her father, she learns how to have sex from her father the closet man that she knows. it is not the fathers intent to get his daughter pregnant he is teaching her to leran how to have sex so that she will know what to do when she has a husband.

The above types of practice are those usally of people who live in natural enviroments, or tribal life.... it is basic sex education, these types are parents are doing it in the interest of their child not as a means of exsploitation.

In many parts of the world parents delibertly have sexual intercourse in front of there children to provide a means of sexual education, open demonstration.

a demonstration or act of sexual intercourse at some time must take place for the adolesents to learn about the natural human proccess. without this understanding of sexual proccess many chidlren grow into their late teen woundering about sex and the proper action to take, some will find outlets that change them for the worse, from homosexualtiy to rape and pornograhy, isolation and masterbation a unhealty exercise in sexuality.

Their does remain a seperation from sexual abuse and the sexual education of your own children.

Animals as i said in my early post really have no emotional attachment, they have sexual intercoruse within and in front of the other members of the group, they quickly disassociate with the female soon after sexual intercourse young female or old female. driven by horomones.
humans have hormones the same as animals but also humans form bonds, in some cases that may make it difficult for a neutral seperation, when we disscuss the issue of sexual contact by a parent. we can only hope that
the other parent can see when it has become a abuse rather than a form of education. bring such a act to a stop.

Industralized nations have a different culture than other rual regions of the world, and over time different rule or laws have been applied to society, the 1920s was a difficult time for children in america many children where grossly abused both sexually and as slave labor, it required the fedreal goverment to pass law to protect children in the united states. it is this era that we see how low down humans can be with child abuse. women where no exception. into todays modern world we have some better protection for children however children are still plauged by it seems a growing sexual perversion that exist in industriazed nations, including abortion and homosexualtiy. at the same time they really can't exspect a sexual education from a caring parent or from public education. as society teachs both adversions as acceptable practice.

No one sound mind agrees with child abuse be it a indeginous rual people or those of a industrialized nation.


DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
In addition to issues of child abuse, one has to ask a question about the abuse of children that are born of both male and female sexuallity, those children born as Hermaphrodites. It appears that in industrialized nations that doctors make the descision as to weither the child is either male of female, and implement surgcial procdures based on their philosophy.
The genetic defintion for these children is of the male gender, and preiodically one is born that is anatomically capable of self reproduction (simular to that of the bee) showing a state of evoultion of the human race to become a self reproducing species.
Doctors have no protocol for defining which ones represent that percentage of anatomically correct nature or allowing that as a option to that small percent. also lacking a meathod by which to allow all hermaphodites a medical grooming giveing them the option of self reproduction.
it appears the doctors defintion during infancy may not match the oreintation of the hermaphdoite child.

Before in industrialized nature doctors mutulated such children lealing them inoperable in a sexual manner, (disfigured). I have not seen how indeginous(natural/Tribal people) handel such multi gendered child in their society. But it seem clear that industrialized nations have elminated the ablity of evoultion to create a
natural self-reproducing human speiecs, mainly by not protecting these children from alteration during infancy, and by lacking in defining which ones can be developed into a self-reproducing person.

In a overall it becomes clear that any male of the human species could potentially make the transformation from male to female and as well become self-reproducing. Given a education of the proccess, yet society has not invested in social education of human males to exercise such ablity.
Should that be considered abuse of human males by the social order where the social order fails to educate males , and lead the way in human advancement.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top